2022IPBES_ASSESSMENTONVALUESCHAPTER3

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/364365808
Chapter 3. The potential of valuation
Chapter · October 2022
CITATIONS READS
9 936
21 authors, including:
M. Termansen Sander Jacobs

University of Copenhagen Research Institute for Nature and Forest
161 PUBLICATIONS 10,380 CITATIONS 142 PUBLICATIONS 5,533 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Tuyeni Heita Mwampamba Antonio J. Castro

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Universidad de Almería
64 PUBLICATIONS 2,321 CITATIONS 139 PUBLICATIONS 3,725 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by David Gonzalez-Jimenez on 07 March 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CHAPTER 3. THE POTENTIAL OF VALUATION
Chapter
Chapter 3
THE POTENTIAL
OF VALUATION1,2
COORDINATING LEAD AUTHORS: De Longueville (Belgium), Bathsheba Demuth (United

Mette Termansen (Denmark), Sander Jacobs (Belgium), States of America), Evangelia Drakou (Greece), Alvaro
Tuyeni H. Mwampamba (United Republic of Tanzania/ Fernandez-Llamazares (Spain), Raphael Filippelli (Brazil),
Mexico). Jeanne Freitag (Germany), Miguel Gonzalez (Nicaragua),
Ben Groom (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
LEAD AUTHORS: Ireland), Dolf de Groot (Netherlands), Ellen Guimaraes
SoEun Ahn (Republic of Korea), Antonio J. Castro (Brazil), Terry Hartig (United States of America), Till Jacob
Martinez (Spain), Nicolas Dendoncker (Belgium), Houda Heydenreich (Germany), Robert K. Hitchcock (United
Ghazi (Morocco), Haripriya Gundimeda (India), Mariaelena States of America), Ida Marie Højgaard Jørgensen
Huambachano (Peru, New Zealand/ United States of (Denmark), Andra-Ioana Horcea-Milcu (Romania), Robert
America), Heera Lee (Republic of Korea/Germany), Nibedita Johnston (United States of America), Amalie Kafling
Mukherjee (India/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nørrelund (Denmark), Pratikshya Kandel (Nepal), Edna
Northern Ireland), Gabriel Ricardo Nemogá (Colombia/ Kaptoyo (Kenya), Merata Kawharu (New Zealand), Mira
Canada), Jonas Ngouhouo Poufoun (Cameroon/France), Kracke (Germany), Johan Lammerant (Belgium), Freja
Ignacio Palomo (Spain), Ram Pandit (Nepal/Australia), Larsen (Denmark), John Lengoisa Samorai (Kenya),
Marije Schaafsma (Netherlands/United Kingdom of Great Jerome Lewis (United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Britain and Northern Ireland), Andy Choi (Republic of Korea). Northern Ireland), Berta Martin-Lopez (Spain), Luiza Martins
Karpavicius (Brazil), Errachid Montassir (Morocco), Roldan
FELLOWS: Muradian (Netherlands), John-Baptist Naah (Ghana), Aidin
Anna Filyushkina (Russian Federation), Marcello Niamir (Islamic Republic of Iran), Carl Obst (Australia),
Hernández-Blanco (Costa Rica). Søren Bøye Olsen (Denmark), Begüm Özkaynak (Türkiye),
1, 2 Elvia Rufo Jimenez (Spain), Juan Francisco Salazar
CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS: (Chile), Fernando Santos Martin (Spain), Rieke Schneider
Fisola Emmanuel Adesuyi (Nigeria), Glarinda Andre (Germany), Alyssa Solvie (Germany), Tammy Stenner
3
(Vanuatu), Mulubrhan Balehegn (Ethiopia), David N. Barton (Canada), Andrew Stratton (United States of America),
(Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Natalia Stryamets (Ukraine), Krystyna Swiderska (United
Ireland /Norway), Clinton Beckford (Canada), Jacqueline Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Anna
Beggs (New Zealand), Hanne Carla Bisjak (Germany), Joy Thompson (United States of America), Paula Ungar
Raïsa Carmen (Belgium), Michael Cepek (United States (Colombia), Susanne Vetter (South Africa), Pekka Virtanen
of America), Michelle Cocks (South Africa), Lauren (Finland), Priscilla Wehi (New Zealand), Patricio Zanabria
Cooper (United States of America), Juan Cusanero Elias Vizcarra (Peru), Eduard Zdor (Russian Federation), Eglee
(Guatemala), Florence Daguitan (Philippines), Florence Zent (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela), Rasmus Zitthen
(Denmark).
1. This is the final text version of Chapter 3.
2. Authors are listed with, in parentheses, their country or
REVIEW EDITORS:
countries of citizenship, separated by a comma when they
have more than one; and, following a slash, their country of Joshua Farley (United States of America), Ernesto Raez
affiliation, if different from that or those of their citizenship, (Peru).
or their organization if they belong to an international
organization. The countries and organizations having
nominated the experts are listed on the IPBES website
TECHNICAL SUPPORT UNIT:
(except for contributing authors who were not nominated). David González-Jiménez, Victoria Contreras.
THIS CHAPTER SHOULD BE CITED AS :

Termansen, M., Jacobs, S., Mwampamba, T.H., Ahn, S., Castro, A., Dendoncker, N., Ghazi, H., Gundimeda, H.,
Huambachano, M., Lee, H., Mukherjee, N., Nemogá, G.R., Palomo, I., Pandit, R., Schaafsma, M., Ngouhouo, J., Choi,
A., Filyushkina, A., Hernández-Blanco, M., Contreras, V., and González-Jiménez, D. (2022). Chapter 3: The potential of
valuation. In: Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, and D.
González-Jiménez (eds). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6521298
123
THE METHODOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON THE DIVERSE VALUES AND VALUATION OF NATURE
The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps used in the assessment do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. These maps have been prepared or used for the sole purpose of facilitating the
assessment of the broad biogeographical areas represented therein.
Chapter 3
124
Table of
Chapter
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Key findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
3.1 AN INTRODUCTION TO VALUATION OF NATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

3.1.1 What is valuation of nature and human-nature relations?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
3.1.2 Why assess valuation methods and approaches? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
3.1.2.1 Classifying methods to facilitate their assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
3.1.2.2 A discipline-neutral grouping of valuation methods: introduction to the method families. . . . . . . . . 141
3.1.3 Previous assessments and significant reviews of valuation methods. . . . . . . 142
3.1.4 The scope and evidence base for the chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
3.1.4.1 The six assessment questions in Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
3.1.4.2 The evidence generation process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
3.2 THE RICHNESS OF VALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

3.2.1 Valuation Atlas: the diversity and global distribution of valuation practice �� 146
3.2.1.1 Reasons (purposes) for valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
3.2.1.2 Which values and whose values are assessed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
3.2.2 Assessment of valuation methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
3.2.2.1 Overview of nature-based valuation methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
3.2.2.2 Overview of statement-based valuation methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
3.2.2.3 Overview of behaviour-based valuation methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
3.2.2.4 Overview of integrated valuation methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
3.2.3 Valuation and diverse value types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
3.2.4 Valuation practice in IPLC contexts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
3.2.4.1 From valuing Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) to valuation by Indigenous Peoples
and Local Communities (IPLC): A historical context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
3.2.4.2 The evidence-base for IPLC valuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
3.2.4.3 General description of valuing processes in IPLC contexts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
3
3.2.4.4 Description of valuation practice in IPLC contexts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
3.2.4.5 Methods and approaches in IPLC valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
3.3 KEY CONSIDERATIONS IN VALUATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

3.3.1 Relevance of the valuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
3.3.1.1 Counting what counts: societal goals of valuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
3.3.1.2 Recognition of diverse knowledges and worldviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
3.3.1.3 Plurality in valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
3.3.2 Robustness of valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
3.3.2.1 Reliability in valuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
3.3.2.2 Reliability controversy in statement-based valuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
3.3.2.3 Fair representation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
3.3.2.3.1 Representation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
3.3.2.3.2 What is a good outcome for a community or society? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
3.3.3 Resources for valuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
3.3.3.1 Resource needs for methods applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
3.3.3.2 Using pre-existing valuation outputs: benefit transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
3.3.4 Trade-offs between relevance, robustness and resources in method choice �� 205
3.3.4.1 Trade-offs and complementarities in economic valuation initiatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
3.4 GUIDANCE FOR VALUATION PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

3.4.1 Valuation is a step-wise process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
3.4.1.1 Step 1 – constructing a legitimate process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
3.4.1.2 Step 2 – defining the purpose of valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
3.4.1.3 Step 3 – scoping the valuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
125
3.4.1.4 Step 4 – selecting and applying valuation methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

3.4.1.5 Step 5 – articulating the values for decision-making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
3.5 CONCLUSIONS, KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 221
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
BOXES, FIGURES AND TABLES

Box 3.1 The role of nature valuation in the management, resolution and transformation of
socio-environmental conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Box 3.2 Ecosystem services valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Box 3.3 Methods for eliciting and articulating broad values and worldviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Box 3.4 Methods for valuation of nature for businesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Box 3.5 Understanding “evidence” from IPLC epistemologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Box 3.6 Inter-personal comparisons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Box 3.7 Natural capital accounting: the system of environmental economic accounting (SEEA) ��211
Figure 3.1 Global distribution of valuation studies in the period 2010-2020.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Figure 3.2 Discipline-neutral valuation method families and their coverage of the IPBES
conceptual framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Figure 3.3 Visual representation of how the methods families act as selective filters that
make only isolated elements of IPLC valuation visible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Figure 3.4 The valuation operating space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Figure 3.5 Valuation process depicted in 5 steps.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Figure 3.6 The five steps in the valuation process are realized through interacting procedures,
underpinned by theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Figure 3.7 Chapter 3 discipline-neutral valuation method families and their coverage of the IPBES
conceptual framework and abundance of the method families in the valuation literature. ��141
Figure 3.8 Timeline of major biodiversity and ecosystem service assessments and major reviews,
their main focus and the extent of the review of valuation methodsis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Figure 3.9 Trend and disciplinary mix in nature valuation based on Web of Science.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Figure 3.10 Decadal country distribution of the corpus of nature valuation studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Figure 3.11 Valuations per habitat type.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Figure 3.12 Biophysical scale at which valuations were performed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Figure 3.13 Valuations per administrative scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Figure 3.14 Stated purposes of valuations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Figure 3.15 Relative abundance of various valuation targets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Figure 3.16 Social scale at which valuations were performed.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Figure 3.17 The number of studies reporting on participatory valuation of nature in the
academic literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Figure 3.18 Levels and types of stakeholder engagement in valuation studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Figure 3.19 Value justifications or dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Figure 3.20 Value types sensu “total economic value” framework in valuations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Figure 3.21 Percentual abundance of various valuation targets.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Figure 3.22 Abundance of various value indicators over all valuations relative per method family and
per discipline.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Figure 3.23 Concentric circles describing the content of IPLC contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Figure 3.24 Projection onto the IPBES conceptual framework of the focus of valuation by IPLCs and
the types of values that IPLC valuation captures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Figure 3.25 Values reported by the contributing authors.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Figure 3.26 How values are expressed and manifested in IPLC contexts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Figure 3.27 The main purpose of valuation in IPLC contexts as described by ILK experts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Figure 3.28 Visual representation of how the methods families act as a selective lens to make only
isolated elements of IPLC valuation visible to the IPBES audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Figure 3.29 The stated goals of valuation and the approaches to target these. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
126
Chapter
Figure 3.30 The stated goals of valuation and the approaches to target these associated
to methods families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Figure 3.31 Proportion of valuation studies that mention reply of different types of knowledge. . . . . . . . . . 188
Figure 3.32 Proportion of valuation studies that mention key IPLC principles guiding their relations
with each other and with nature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Figure 3.33 Recognition of broad principles across all valuations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Figure 3.34 Level of broad plurality of valuations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Figure 3.35 Level of specific plurality of valuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Figure 3.36 Ways in which valuations have combined different value types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Figure 3.37 The valuation operating space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Figure 3.38 Consideration of the representation in valuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Figure 3.39 Approaches for improving inclusion in valuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Figure 3.40 Consideration of transparency in valuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Figure 3.41 Community of justice in valuation based on systematic review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Figure 3.42 Approaches to aggregate individually held values for the collective or a higher social
scale to support decision-making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Figure 3.43 Valuation process depicted in 5 steps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Table 3.1 Valuation methods can be classified into four method families with distinct characteristics. �� 131
Table 3.2 Summary of evidence sourcing methods applied in Chapter 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Table 3.3 Examples of methods that can be used to address conflict across stages.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Table 3.4 Examples of tools and methods in nature-based valuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Table 3.5 Overview of value stating methods.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Table 3.6 Summary of behaviour-based valuation methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Table 3.7 Overview of integrated valuation methods, including integrative methods and
decision support tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Table 3.8 Valuation methods can be classified into four method families with distinct characteristics. �� 172
Table 3.9 Applying the methods families framework to the practice of valuation in IPLC contexts. . . . . . 181
Table 3.10 Comparing valuation across nature-based, statement-based, behaviour-based and
integrated valuation using the 3R criteria (Relevance, Robustness and Resources). . . . . . . . . . 206
Table 3.11 Comparison of the relative merits of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity,
United Nations System of Environmental Economic Accounting (UN SEEA EA) and the
Inclusive Wealth approach using the 3R criteria (Relevance, Robustness and Resources). ��214
Table 3.12 Illustrative example cases to illustrate valuation choices and method selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Table 3.13 Potential responses for the valuation questions guiding Steps 1, 2 and 3 of the valuation
process, for each of the illustrative cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
3
Table 3.14 Examples from the four method families, their main characteristics and their selection
for the six illustrative cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
Annex 3.1 Summary of major reviews of nature valuation methods in previous assessments.
Annex 3.2 Databases that include valuation studies related to biodiversity and ecosystem services
Annex 3.3 Best practice resources. Ecosystem services valuation tools
Annex 3.4 Examples of tools and methods in nature-based valuation.
Annex 3.5 Overview of value stating methods including potential strengths and limitations
Annex 3.6 Summary of potentials and limitations of behaviour-based (value revealing) methods
Annex 3.7 Behaviour-based methods – Good practice guidelines
Annex 3.8 Overview of integrated valuation methods, including integrative methods and decision support
tools, with references on strengths and limitations
Annex 3.9 Health valuation
Annex 3.10 How values are manifested in IPLC contexts (i.e., valuing processes subject to valuation)
Annex 3.11 Values as principles that position human relations with nature and guide interactions with nature
Annex 3.12 Examples of methodologies, frameworks and methods developed by non-western science
knowledge systems
Annex 3.13 Coding for Table 3.10.
Annex 3.14 Coding for Table 3.11 (Economic initiatives)
Annex 3.15 Non-exhaustive list of guidelines for conducting research in indigenous and local communities
127
THE POTENTIAL
OF VALUATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY inform a decision. Who is providing this mandate? what is
its scope? who is conducting the valuation? how will the
valuation results be used? which values are considered?
Valuation of nature is a process that is intentionally whose values are (not) taken into account? Intertwined
undertaken to generate information about values of with these questions is the choice of appropriate methods.
nature and of human-nature relations. While all individuals This choice requires assessing what valuation methods are
knowingly and unknowingly undertake some form of capable of, what their drawbacks are, and which contextual
valuing to inform their everyday decisions, this chapter considerations are key to make better valuation choices.
only addresses valuation that is conducted for purposes
beyond those of the individual, usually for collective Assessing valuation (methods and approaches)
or societal benefits. In the context of decision-making requires consideration of the suitability of methods and
about nature, valuation makes visible the range of values approaches within a context and political process. Valuation
surrounding a given issue and can facilitate and recognise goes beyond technical procedures of method application.
them and enable their inclusion in decisions. In such The valuation methods assessed in this chapter focus on
contexts, valuation is conducted by knowledgeable ‘valuation of nature’ in the broadest sense, including for
individuals (valuators or valuation experts) entrusted to instance: a ritual to confirm community relations to nature
apply established valuation procedures for eliciting and described in traditional knowledge or anthropological
synthesising values. research; biophysical models to evaluate ecosystem
services; deliberative social appraisal of the impact of
The goal of valuations is to achieve improvements in nature on wellbeing; or expression of the values of nature
human well-being, ecological sustainability and justice in monetary terms through revealed preference methods.
of decision-making processes and outcomes. More Our evidence covers the entire field of valuation of nature,
specifically, valuations can: support decisions about which has substantially grown and diversified over the past
alternative projects or policies; inform the course of 40 years.
(collective) action; aid in the design of policy tools and
instruments; assess and even strengthen human-human The primary objective of this chapter is to identify key
and human-nature relations. considerations for making valuation choices and developing
guidance for improving valuation practice. To this end,
This chapter assesses the merits of a wide range of the chapter synthesises existing knowledge on valuation
discipline-focused and traditional valuation methods methods in order to identify the range of valuations that
and approaches. We explore valuation methods from exist, how they have been applied and what their limitations
the fields of economics and ecology, as well as other are. The chapter assesses the potential of valuation
procedures and practices that are used to assess the methods to elicit and make sense of diverse values. It does
value of nature and human-nature relations, including not cover the effectiveness and actual uptake of valuation
those undertaken by Indigenous Peoples and Local outputs into decision-making processes (which is the
Communities (IPLC). In doing so, we have adopted a subject of Chapter 4).
broad definition of ‘valuation methods’, that recognises a
wide range of procedures that are currently accepted (by The evidence base of this chapter consists of systematic
their communities of practice) as valid ways to undertake in-depth reviews, topical meta-reviews, and methods
valuation. By following established procedures, valuation reviews of the existing literature from all involved disciplines,
methods can be taught, learned, and applied by valuation content analysis of expert contributions, dialogues with
practitioners (valuators) acquainted with them. Since and contributions from Indigenous and local knowledge
valuation methods have originated from different cultures, holders, and thematic expert contributions. The chapter first
disciplinary traditions and schools of thought, different describes the richness of valuation methods, then derives
methods embody different ways of thinking about how to key considerations for valuation and ends with a stepwise
identify values, measure them or compare them against guidance framework to support better valuation choices.
one another.
In the following text, 15 key findings summarise main
Questions emerge whenever people give a mandate to considerations, principles and recommendations to make
a (group of) valuator(s) to conduct a valuation process to methodological choices regarding valuation of nature.
128
Key findings of valuation research and practice; many more exist

depending on how one defines methods considered to be
1 Valuation of nature is conducted with the aim of ‘nature valuation’ {3.2.1}. Having been developed from
achieving improvements in human well-being and disciplines as diverse as – for example – anthropology,
ecological sustainability, and just decision-making biology, economics, geography, psychology, and sociology,
processes and outcomes (well established). Valuation they form a rich resource of valuation procedures that are
assesses nature’s importance for human well-being using a currently being applied to elicit many value types and to
wide range of indicators from livelihood dependence, use of inform on how values vary and change across time, space
natural resources, peoples’ preferences or spending on and social contexts {3.2.1}. In the last two decades,
safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services {3.2.3}. valuation applications have extended across the globe
Valuation for ecological sustainability has been achieved (Figure 3.1) and in a broad range of ecosystems. Most
through assessment of the importance of ecosystem valuations took place at below-national scales (72%), while
capacity, condition and sustainable use {3.2.3}. In addition national (11%) or above-national scales (6%) are less
to intertwined goals of improving human well-being (31% of abundant {3.2.1}.
valuations) and ecological sustainability (65%), justice was
considered in 4% of valuations in the systematic review 3 Existing classifications of valuation methods are
{3.3.1}. Valuation is intended to inform decision-making in based on disciplinary perspectives (e.g., economics,
different ways, from purely providing information (61% of ecology, political science, etc.), making it a challenge
cases in the systematic review), to assisting in selecting to foster interdisciplinary exchange to advance
between alternative actions (32%) and providing insights for valuation practice (established but incomplete).
design, management or policy interventions (7% of cases) Ultimately, all valuation methods gather their information
{3.2.1.1}. from three main sources (components of nature, people’s
statements and people’s behaviours), while others integrate
2 A rich pool of methods and approaches exist to and synthesise values to improve understanding and
value nature and its contributions to good quality of decision-making. Numerous classification systems exist to
life. Methods from a wide range of disciplines and group valuation methods. While each existing classification
traditions offer a multitude of ways to elicit and system has its merits within the disciplinary context in which
interpret the diverse values of nature for decision- it has been developed, their application across disciplines is
making (well established). More than 50 clearly distinct limited {3.1.1}. Regardless of their disciplinary origins,
valuation methods are identifiable from the last four decades methods can be organised into four method families that are
180°W 60°W 0° 60°E 180°E
60°N
30°N
0°
30°S
60°S
Density of Studies (log)
0 2 4 6 8
Figure 3 1 Global distribution of valuation studies in the period 2010-2020 as reported in

academic literature based on key words searches in Web of Science 3.
3. Valuation Atlas (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6468906).
129
not based on discipline-informed assumptions about Valuator familiarity with the underlying assumptions of
human-nature relationships. Nature-based valuation methods and their potential and limitations is critical in
methods assess the biophysical world in order to measure valuation practice to ensure that methods are correctly
and characterise nature and components of nature to make applied, yet, it is rarely assessed.
nature’s contribution to people and the importance of
nature-in-itself visible to decision-making {3.1.1, 3.2.2.1}. 4 Nature-based valuation methods gather and
Statement-based methods infer values based on what analyse information on the biophysical properties of
people express when asked about what they value and why; nature making them an essential family of methods
their responses can be verbal, written or expressed as for assessing ecological sustainability and quantifying
songs, stories or art {3.1.1, 3.2.2.2}. Behaviour-based and qualifying nature’s contributions to people. When
methods assess the importance of nature to people based complemented with behaviour and statement-based
on what people do with and in nature, including their valuations, they can provide critical information for
purchasing behaviour, use of natural resources and time informing policies and decisions about nature (well
spent in nature {3.1.1, 3.2.2.3}. Methods that combine and established). Human societies have a long and established
synthesise several sources of information (whether from the history of assessing nature and natural resources to make
same methods’ family or across families) can be categorised decisions for the collective, hence the strength of nature-
as integration methods {3.1.1, 3.2.2.4}. Within method based methods lies in their long history of trial and error and
families, when selecting specific methods, practitioners can on their tendency to focus primarily on perceivable
apply a range of approaches to suit different valuation dimensions of nature. Nature-based valuation methods
objectives (Figure 3.2, Table 3.1). For example, methods comprise the largest group of method families and reports
can use quantitative or qualitative approaches, they can be of their application are the most frequently encountered in
participatory or non-participatory. The four methods families academic literature {3.2.2.1}. The methods employ direct
were largely developed based on a review of the academic and indirect approaches for measuring components of
literature; however, we also recognize that IPLCs have nature ranging from actual observations in the field (e.g.,
developed their own set of valuation approaches. Applying camera trapping, vegetation surveys, water sampling) to
the methods family framework to understand valuation remotely sensed observations (e.g., based on satellite
procedures that are undertaken by IPLC can help to imagery) and expert consultations (e.g., Delphi methods,
highlight commonalities across valuation traditions and IPLC participatory resource mapping, and interviews). Most
practices and procedures that resemble non-IPLC methods. methods formulate their estimates based on proxies rather
However, the method family typology risks presenting IPLC than direct measurements of nature. Direct and indirect
valuation practice out of context and omitting core cultural assessment of nature is also undertaken in IPLC through
and spiritual beliefs that underpin IPLC ways of valuation. their own methods, such as by conducting targeted territory
Statement-based
valuation
Behaviour-based
Behaviour-based
valuation
valuation
(12%)
Statement-based
Good quality valuation
of life (11%)
Anthropogenic Direct drivers

Nature’s assets
contributions Natural drivers
Institutions and Integrated
to people governance and Anthropogenic valuation
other indirect drivers
drivers (9%)
Integrated
Nature valuation
Nature-based
valuation
(68%)
Nature-based
valuation
Figure 3 2 Discipline-neutral valuation method families and their coverage of the IPBES
conceptual framework (Díaz et al., 2015b) and abundance of the method
families in the valuation literature4.
4. Systematic PCIV (Principles, Criteria, Indicators, Verifiers) review on valuation methods (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4404678).
130
Table 3 1 Valuation methods can be classified into four method families with distinct
characteristics.
Valuation method families
Statement-based Behaviour-based Integration

Nature-based methods
methods methods methods
What is Nature, physical or What people express when What people do in nature, Different outputs from one
assessed? ecological components of asked about the importance for nature, with nature, to, or more methods, to support
nature of nature as nature decision-making
How is Measuring nature and its Asking people (interviews, Observing people, Synthesising, comparing,
information functions through several questionnaires), analysing assessing records of people’s contrasting, deliberating,
about values methods such as remote other expressions (e.g., behaviour (e.g., park visits, consolidating or aggregating
generated? sensing, field observations, narratives, discussions, art, policy choices, (non-)market diverse values for decision-
consulting experts, etc. etc.) exchanges, etc.) making or decision support
Which values are Mainly intrinsic and Instrumental, intrinsic and Mostly instrumental values Instrumental, intrinsic and
elicited instrumental values relational values relational values
Examples of Species richness, CO2 Preferences for nature’s Time spent, share of Strength of support or
value indicators stored, ecological indicators contributions to people, household income, objections to policy options,
subjective well-being prevalence of disease, price welfare gains or losses from
indicators, narratives of of land, use of plants projects
human-nature relationships,
required compensations
Examples of Biodiversity assessment, Group discussion, Participant observation, Natural capital accounting
methods and ecosystem services Q-methodology, travel cost method, cost-benefit analysis
approaches mapping, Delphi method choice experiments, cost-based method, multi-criteria decision
valuation interviews livelihood dependence, aid, integrated modelling,
photo-series analysis deliberative decision methods
Type of Most methods do not Most methods include Most methods have limited Some methods can be
stakeholder include stakeholders, stakeholders to some extent stakeholder inclusion (e.g., non-inclusive (e.g., desktop
inclusion though some inclusive (e.g., surveys) and inclusion analysis of market accounts) multicriteria decision
approaches exist (e.g., is often integral to the but some include diverse analysis MCDA) but often,
based on local ecological method (e.g., participative stakeholders inclusion is key to the
knowledge) approaches) decision support aspect
(e.g., participatory scenario
building)
Examples of Biodiversity indices, Ranked importance of Ranked importance of Ranked policy
typical valuation maps of priority areas for components of nature or components of nature or options, evaluation of
“products” policy/management action, nature’s contributions to nature’s contributions to socio-economic and
improved understanding people, (monetary) value of people, quantified changes environmental impacts of
of the importance of protection of biodiversity- in values nature or nature’s policy options, improved
components of nature rich areas, explanations for contributions to people, understanding of conflicts/
why people value nature explanations for why people shared values of nature
value nature
Limitations/ Impact on people assumed Concern about reliability of Requires conceptual and Aggregation of values
concerns but not assessed, statements, power disparity empirical understanding of across groups of people
dependence of nature is can reduce the validity of the relationships between can reduce representation
not assessed by the people group-based methods, behaviour, nature and its of values, combining
dependent on the resources representativeness in contribution to well-being, multiple value types
selection of respondents challenging to reveal creates incommensurability
in-depth understanding concerns
of motivations behind
behaviour
patrols or ad-hoc reporting by individuals of observed global imbalances in the availability of high-quality
biophysical indicators (e.g., the recent appearance of new biophysical information have repeatedly been identified as a
grass in grazing areas) {3.2.4}. Nature-based methods share key constraint for its widespread incorporation into decision-
some key constraints and limitations. For instance, making, particularly in less wealthy nations. This is partially
biodiversity and ecosystems models are heavily reliant on due to their relatively high cost and skills requirements
assumptions about key processes and input data. Also, needed to transform data into useful information for
131
decision-making through data processing, analyses and These methods permit capturing how humans value nature
modelling {3.2.2.1}. Choosing a method is a value-laden in ways that cannot be deduced from market-based
process that has implications for which ecosystem services approaches or direct observations of people’s behaviour or
or species are prioritised. Yet this process is rarely reported, their practices. Consequently, statement-based methods
and the issue is rarely discussed for nature-based can complement nature-based and behaviour-based
methods {3.2.2.1}. valuation. Methods in this family include interviews and
group discussions, contingent valuations, choice
5 Behaviour-based valuation applies a range of experiments, and mental mapping. Some IPLC valuation
direct and indirect methods to assess values of nature practices that draw heavily on people’s expressions, can be
based on observations of what people do. Values described as containing components of statement-based
based on observed behaviour are regarded as less {3.2.4}. By identifying, characterising and assessing values
influenced by participant and interpreter bias and that are directly expressed by people these methods have
bring robust information for decision support (well contributed to theoretical understanding of what is valued
established). Behaviour-based valuation can be traced (i.e., specific values) and why (i.e., broad values) {3.2.2.2}.
back to the 1940s and includes diverse valuation Because they mostly rely on what people say, statement-
methodologies varying from expressing how nature based methods can facilitate direct interaction and inclusion
underpins productive activities to valuation of non-material of stakeholders in the valuation process {3.2.2.2} however,
psychological experiences from recreational activities they have been criticised for being over-reliant on what
{3.2.2.3}. The main strengths of most of the methods are people say and being subject to the valuators’ own
that they reveal values from observed behaviour and are interpretations of what is said (i.e., they are sensitive to
therefore less sensitive to participant or interpreter biases participant or interpreter biases). Solutions to some of the
than statement-based methods {3.2.2.3}. The main challenges of statement-based valuation have been
limitations for wider application of the behaviour-based developed, although they have not completely resolved the
methods are their methodological inflexibility and generally fundamental concern regarding reliability of statement-
high requirements for data availability {3.2.2.3}. Furthermore, based valuation {3.2.2.2}. Mainstreaming this family of
the methodologies tend to be specialised to a limited range methods into policy and other decision-making domains
of value targets {3.2.2.3}. A key limitation of cost-based could diversify the range of actors and values that are
methods is that they can be a poor reflection of the benefits brought into decision-making processes {3.2.2.2}.
that people obtain from nature; however, they are often used
because they have low resource requirements {3.2.2.3}. 7 Obtaining information about values alone is
IPLC valuation practices that assess values based on what insufficient for guiding inclusion of values in decision-
people do in the landscape, what they consume, how making. Integration methods attempt to serve this
community members trade goods and services between objective by synthesising values towards decision-
each other, or which rules are broken or adhered to by making. However, depending on the method and how
community members shares components of behaviour- it is applied, value integration can inadvertently
based valuation {3.2.4}. Behaviour-based valuation has the conceal social complexities and promote/discriminate
potential to contribute to Natural Capital Accounting values (well established). Integrated valuation methods
{3.2.2.3} (Box 3.7) as they capture observed interactions bring together different values of nature and human-nature
between ecosystems and economic activities which are interrelations {3.2.2.4}. The approaches are diverse and
amenable to accounting principles. Improved access to include decision support tools for project and policy
environmental, social and economic databases across evaluation; but also modelling and scenario building
global regions could reduce the barriers for the application methods to consolidate information for decision-making
of these methods. through the exploration of the interactions between
ecosystem processes and human and environmental
6 Statement-based valuation methods generate drivers. Cost-benefit and multi-criteria decision analyses are
information, based on individual or group expressions, common integrated valuation approaches. Another example
about people’s relation to and perceptions about is participatory mapping of nature’s contributions to people,
nature and quality of life, and their preferences for which can integrate information from nature-based and
material, non-material and regulating contributions of statement-based methods to spatially define and quantify
nature. Methods in this family can provide deeper the importance of different facets of nature. Production
understanding of worldviews and motivations function approaches can help bring together information on
underlying peoples’ values of nature (well nature’s biophysical values (from nature-based valuations)
established). A wide range of methods have been and economic values (from behaviour-based and statement-
developed to understand the values of people and based methods) to estimate the costs and benefits of
communities by engaging them in activities that encourage projects or policies {3.2.2.4}. The United Nations System for
value expression through verbal, written or other forms. Environmental Ecosystem Accounting synthesises physical
132
information on ecosystem extent, condition and services assess its meaning. Understanding the wealth and depth of
with monetary valuation of ecosystem services and asset/ IPLC valuation will require expanding stringent disciplinary
natural capital value {3.2.2}. definitions of “methods” and concepts such as “evidence”
{3.2.4} (Figure 3.3). The field of indigenous methodologies
8 IPLC undertake valuation in their territories using and methodologies from other knowledge systems is
diverse approaches, procedures, and practices aimed growing and offering opportunities to recognize and include
at fulfilling multiple goals (established but incomplete), IPLC and other knowledge systems to describe and develop
but there is incomplete understanding about valuation valuation methods that adequately elicit and articulate their
within IPLC settings (well established). As with other values. Ethical standards and guidelines for engaging with
societies, IPLC uphold valuation traditions within their own IPLCs to undertake valuation exist and should be widely
communities and territories to generate pertinent information applied {3.3.1}.
about their inter-relations with nature for fulfilling specific
purposes, such as maintaining reciprocal relations with 9 Valuation studies are capable of representing
nature and contributing to ecological sustainability. Through diverse value dimensions. In practice, most studies
diverse approaches and practices, IPLCs use valuation assess instrumental values although studies
processes to enhance well-being, transmit and generate assessing intrinsic and relational values are also
ecological and cultural knowledge, and reinforce their abundant (well established). The instrumental values of
cultural identity with land and waters. A more complete nature for human well-being are the most common focus for
description and characterization of IPLC valuation is valuation (74% of valuations in literature), but the valuation of
hindered, however, by a scarcity of studies and limited the intrinsic worth of nature (20%) and relational values (6%)
regional representation of existing works. Available works are also established in the literature (well established). ‘Living
suggest that valuation by IPLC shares many of the attributes from’ is the most common perspective for valuation (41% of
of non-IPLC valuation. For example, IPLC valuation valuations in a systematic review), followed by the ‘living
practices that assess values based on what people do in with’ and ‘living in’ perspectives (34% and 20%
the landscape, what they consume, how community respectively). The ‘living as’ perspective is rare (5% of
members trade goods and services between each other, or valuations in a systematic review) {3.2.3}.
which rules are broken or adhered to by community
members shares components of behaviour-based valuation 10 Valuation needs to be robust if it is to provide
{3.2.4}. Although IPLC valuation is sometimes led by a few valuable information for decision-making. However,
community experts, it is often a collective process whereby best practices to achieve robustness are not
most – if not all – community members participate as universally accepted, and vary substantially across
experts to gather information on values and to collectively disciplines and knowledge systems (well established).
Statement-based
valuation
Interviews
Ceremony
Remote
sensing

Nature-based

valuation
Interactions
with spirits
Integrated
valuation Behaviour-based
Observing
valuation
people
Figure 3 3 Visual representation of how the methods families (left) act as selective filters
that make only isolated elements of IPLC valuation visible.
To the right: Three examples (interviews, remote sensing, and observing people) of how the method families framework accesses
elements of IPLC valuation. Two examples of integral elements of IPLC valuation not accessed or represented by methods
families (e.g., valuation as ceremony and interactions with spirits).
133
In reference to methods, robustness refers to the ability of a implications for fairness and robustness of valuation.
method to provide reliable and consistent representation of No consensus exists on the best practice for
values. Research on robustness of valuation processes has aggregation procedures (well established). Decisions
focused on different aspects of robustness, reflecting the on nature most often have impacts on multiple stakeholders.
different intended use of the valuation outputs. The economic Therefore, decision-making involves weighing up the
valuation literature has emphasised theoretical consistency impacts to arrive at an overall evaluation i.e., a societal
and accuracy to enable a broader range of values of nature value. Weightings to account for intergenerational
to be included in economic policy and project appraisals distribution of outcomes of projects or policies through
{3.3.2.2}. Valuation in the social sciences has focused on application of discounting procedures is established and
robustness in terms of the legitimacy of the process to contested {3.3.2}. Intragenerational weighting procedures to
recognize diverse value systems and enable dialog {3.3.2.2}. consider distributional justice for practical use in project and
Robustness testing of methods allows methods to be policy evaluation are developed but not widely used {3.3.2}.
continuously improved making them more reliable. For Most valuation studies focus on the values of a specific
example, continuous testing of stated preference valuation group of people from the current generation. A range of
results has resulted in more robust methods to ascribe aggregation approaches are used, with the sum of
peoples’ values of nature using statement-based valuation individual’s values being most widely adopted. Deliberative
{3.3.2.2}. Adhering to best practice across diverse valuation approaches can be suitable in some valuation contexts but
approaches can greatly improve the robustness of valuation do not provide a general solution to the aggregation
{3.3.2}. In practice, while two thirds of valuations consider at challenge. Therefore, practical options to consider
least one aspect of reliability, these aspects as well as the intragenerational distributions are needed for more robust
way they are addressed vary widely between methods aggregation of valuation results.
{3.3.2}. Given the diverse purposes and contexts within
which valuation is conducted, valuation studies need to 13 Plural valuation is a strategy to include more
report more regularly on how they addressed robustness and diverse values, with the aim of increasing legitimacy,
what uncertainty remains in the results. justice and robustness of valuations (established but
incomplete). It is achieved by combining
11 Procedural justice has become a key consideration complementary methods that elicit multiple value
in valuation to ensure that all stakeholders are heard, types (unresolved). Valuation methods have varying
and that the valuation process is accessible. capacity to identify diverse values {3.3.1.3}. Valuation
Consensus on how to achieve procedural justice in methods exist to elicit different components of value,
valuation and how to evaluate good practice is largely including: use, non-use and option values, various
lacking (well established). Procedural justice in valuation contributions of nature, aspects of biodiversity and quality of
refers to the fairness in the valuation process. Fairness in life, broad values related to different life frames of nature’s
valuation processes relates to how representation of values, different specific values (instrumental, intrinsic and
different stakeholder groups is ensured, the extent to which relational), and IPLC principles. Plural valuation allows
participants can get involved in the process and how power multiple types of specific values to be captured (e.g.,
disparities between participants can be addressed in the different NCP) and different broad value frames (e.g., life
valuation process. A considerable number of valuations value frames) to be considered.
represent diverse stakeholders (48%) and have
distinguished different social groups based on gender, Most valuations do account for some degree of such
income, age, education level, indigenous rights, power, type specific and broad plurality {3.3.1.3}. However, only
of knowledge held, different stakes and different political few valuations have a high specific (1.3%) or broad
roles {3.3.2.3}. Most often (30%), two or more of these (0.6%) plurality. Capturing a richer diversity of values
variables are considered. However, even though it is can be achieved by combining several complementary
recognised that power asymmetry can undermine the methods, but the use of multiple methods requires careful
inclusion of participants {3.2.2.4}, few valuation studies consideration, since their underlying assumption and
document how power asymmetry is accounted for in the disciplinary origin can make some methods incompatible
valuation process (1% of studies in a systematic review). The with one another. Despite the wide range of methods
contribution of valuation to achieve fairer decision processes available, most valuations (77%) only apply one main
relies on transparent and tested methodologies. Validation of method. Where combinations of methods have been
procedures to take procedural justice into account is lacking employed, the methods used have come from the same
and best practice guidance is needed. discipline {3.3.1.3}. In cases where diverse values need
to be captured, complementary methods from different
12 Aggregation of values held by individuals to disciplines are required. In practice, consulting valuators
inform collective decisions is central to valuations from different disciplinary backgrounds can help select the
(well established). Yet, aggregation has important appropriate method(s) to produce scope-relevant results.
134
Combining methods however is more demanding regarding not attempt to bring different values together, but instead
skills, resources and time. The level of investment in the use distinct biophysical, monetary and socio-cultural
valuation process depends on the complexity and stakes of indicators. A primary objective of valuation is to allow
the valuation context: high stakes and high complexity justify different but compatible values to be comparable e.g., to
investing in a more complex and demanding valuation (see enable prioritizations in decision-making. About half of the
Chapter 1). The operating space for valuation is determined valuation studies that do bring different values together
by risk and resources (Figure 3.4). Underinvestment in apply methods allowing values to be directly compared
valuation risks to misinform decisions and produce adverse {3.3.1}; the other half compares bundles of values, or uses
effects. Parsimony on the other hand advises against using relative weights based on participants’ or valuation experts’
more resources and time than justified by the benefits or rankings or deliberation {3.3.1}. Less than 1% of valuation
losses at stake {3.4} (Figure 3.4). Note that for decisions of studies keep values separate (i.e., treat them in parallel in a
low complexity and stakes, no valuation might be needed deliberative process) {3.3.1}.
at all. Similarly, for medium complexity and stake, often a
simple valuation might suffice (Figure 3.4). 14 Trade-offs between the relevance, robustness
and resources define the operating space for
When multiple methods are applied, often incommensurable valuation within each decision-making context
results are obtained, adding complexity to the decision- (established but incomplete). Clarifying the purpose and
making process. For instance, a decision might need to be subsequent scoping of a valuation process can help identify
based on information on diverse types of values such as the values at stake and ensure the relevance of the valuation
economic costs and benefits, socio-cultural importance, for decision-making. As the choice of valuation process
ecological value and principles held by the population influences the outcome, relevance entails ensuring that all
regarding human-nature relations. These values are not the values at stake are accounted for; rather than only
fully separable or fully comparable: any value indicator will eliciting those values that can easily be made visible with the
reflect partial aspects of different values. This is inevitable readily available tools and skills {3.3.4, 3.4.1.3}. Robust use
in plural valuation and implies that transferability of value of methods refers to the ability to provide reliable and
estimates across valuation context poses risk in decision- consistent evidence following transparent and legitimate
making. In practice, the majority (56%) of valuations do value elicitation processes. Robust valuation methods
Complex & Plural
Decision
NO PLURAL VALUATION
VALUATION METHODS AND PROCESSES
NECESSARY
Decision
-
Combined
Decision
VALUATION
OPERATING
-
SPACE
Simple
Decision
DECISION RISK
INCOMPLETE OR
-
BIASED VALUATION
Decision
No
Very Low Low Medium High Very High
CONTEXT COMPLEXITY
Figure 3 4 The valuation operating space: valuation methods and processes from
‘none’ to ‘plural’ as a trade-off between decision risk and resources spent on
unnecessary valuation.
135
therefore require both that values elicited are reliable and considerations of the valuation process {3.4.1}. The
that they fairly represent the values at stake. Robustness five-step model illustrates that the application of valuation
therefore entails adhering to theoretical consistency and methods and approaches is part of a larger process, and it
accuracy to allow reliable impact evaluation. It also requires is largely this process which can ensure that valuation
a socially legitimate process to recognize and include methods provide quality input to decision-making. The
diverse values and enable dialogue {3.3.4, 3.4.1.5}. Testing valuation process includes the following steps (Figure 3.5).
the robustness of methods is key to making valuation Step 1 – construction of a legitimate process – requires that
gradually more reliable for decision-making {3.3.2, 3.3.2.1}. the providers of valuation information are explicitly defined,
Standardisation and adhering to best-practices can greatly and transparency about how a robust valuation is ensured
improve valuation robustness {3.3.2, 3.3.4, 3.4.1.5}. regarding representativeness or participation {3.4.1.1}. Step
Valuation requires employing resources, including time, 2 – defining the purpose of the valuation and the intended
financial, technical, human and political resources. use of the outputs {3.4.1.2}. This purpose is often clear from
Comprehensive information on resource needs for valuation the decision context or the given problem, but the valuation
methods is lacking {3.3.3}. process can benefit from fine tuning and (re)defining this
purpose with the stakeholders engaged in the first step.
15 The valuation process can be summarised in five Step 3 – scope of the valuation defines what is being
steps. Valuation choices made in each single step valued, whose values are being represented and whose are
define options in the next steps, and finally determine not. Also, feasibility constraints in terms of financial, human
the quality of the valuation. The steps are (1) and technical resources need to be evaluated {3.4.1.3}.
constructing a legitimate process; (2) defining the Step 4 – choice and application of valuation methods,
objectives of the valuation; (3) scoping the valuation; combining an appropriate set of nature-based, statement-
(4) selecting and applying methods, and (5) facilitating based, behaviour-based or integration methods {3.3.4,
the uptake in decision-making. Following these steps 3.4.1.4}. Step 5 – articulation towards decision-making
and reporting on the decisions made improves requires transparent communication of the outputs, as well
transparency of valuations (well established). A as limitations and omissions in the valuation which might
five-step approach includes the steps needed to cover key affect (risks in) their application {3.4.1.5}.
STEP 1 • Who is dependent on the (changes in) nature considered?

CONSTRUCT A LEGITIMATE • What are the levels of dependance of these?
• What are their levels of influence and power on the decision?
PROCESS
• Which processes and inclusiveness measures need to be achieved?
STEP 2 • Why is the valuation conducted?

DEFINE THE PURPOSE OF • Which decision type(s) are aimed for?
THE VALUATION
STEP 3 • Which broad and specific value types are important to consider (step 1)?
BOUNDING THE SCOPE OF • Which value types are relevant to the decision (step 1, 2)?
• Which expertises are needed to realize valuations for these value types?
THE VALUATION
• Which resources (time, financial, technical) are available?
STEP 4 • Which methods are relevant?

METHOD SELECTION • Which methods are robust?
AND APPLICATION • Which methods are affordable?
STEP 5 • How can results be used?

ARTICULATING RESULTS • How can’t they be used?
• What are uncertainties re. relevance and robustness?
IN DECISION MAKING
• Which risks do these uncertainties entail?
Figure 3 5 Valuation process depicted in 5 steps.

The choice and application of an appropriate (set of) valuation methods is embedded within this larger process.
136
3.1 AN INTRODUCTION TO While individuals consciously and unconsciously undertake
VALUATION OF NATURE some degree of valuing to interpret and understand nature

or to assess their own and others’ relations with nature, in
this chapter we only address formal valuation, conducted
3.1.1 What is valuation of nature for purposes beyond those of the individual, usually for
and human-nature relations? collective or societal benefits. To this end, we focus on
valuation that generates information about nature’s values
Chapter 2 provided a comprehensive introduction and that can ultimately be used to, for example:
assessment of how people and societies value nature in
terms of how they relate to nature, the importance that Design policy tools and instruments for conservation
they assign to all or parts of nature, and the different ways and sustainable management of nature and
that they manifest their relations with and preferences for natural resources;
nature. The act and process of valuing nature is expressed
by individuals, groups, and societies in either explicit Choose between alternative projects or policies;
perceivable forms or implicit and allusive ways. As Chapter 2
has outlined, some of the ways in which valuing of nature Understand, mitigate or transform socio-
manifests in societies is through: environmental conflicts;
How people talk about nature or their relations Assess the potential damage to nature of different
with nature [policy] decisions;
How people spend valued resources such as time Collectively celebrate, honour or acknowledge the
and money on nature-related experiences, goods importance of nature.
and services
Valuation methods and approaches

How people depict nature in art, literature, song and
other forms of artistic expression Regardless of who undertakes valuation, valuation
processes are guided by methods and approaches that
How nature is embedded in personal or societal enable recognition of values of nature and human-nature
aspirations such as life goals or constitutions relationships. A valuation method is a procedure for eliciting
and articulating values of nature. Elicitation methods include
How people choose between different options for a wide range of data collection techniques that are used
actions related to nature to gather information about values. Value articulation is the
process of generating clarity and coherence of the values
How nature is incorporated into lifestyles, career elicited. Firstly, it consists of analysing, interpreting and
choices, or communicating values; and secondly of organising value
expressions to support different decision-making purposes.
How people regard and subsequently treat nature Methods lay out which procedures and what techniques
will be combined at different steps of the valuation
Valuation of nature is the process of documenting process. Ideally, valuation methods are standard and
the existence of values, identifying when and where accepted approaches to be applied within their decision-
and by whom they are expressed, that in turn allows making context.
characterising values. Recognizing which and whose
values and their characterization in a given context allows Valuation approaches are defined here as higher-level
making values visible and increase the probability for their assumptions, ideas or beliefs that underpin methods.
inclusion in decision-making. In the context of nature- They translate key decisions on how a method is to be
related decision-making and policy design, valuation is an applied or how the information generated by methods
important process for ensuring that decisions are informed is to be interpreted. For each approach there are often
by existing values and that they ultimately reflect the values multiple accepted methods that adhere to the basic
of those affected by decisions (Figure 3.6). In many assumptions and ideas of the given approach. In the case
cases, a multiplicity of actors (e.g., different stakeholder of valuation, approaches determine whether valuation will
groups) and value types (i.e. broad and specific values) be participatory or not, whether it is only academically
surround a decision-making context. Understanding which and institutionally oriented or not, whether values will be
and whose values are at play requires valuation processes expressed in monetary or non-monetary terms, spatially
that capture value plurality and articulate it for better specific or not, place-based or not, whether values will
informed decisions. be elicited using direct or indirect techniques, or whether
137
contested values will be deliberated or assessed by full suite of epistemological backing and procedures from
other means. Valuation approaches can also manifest as eliciting till communication. The result is that a broad range
academic “traditions” or widely accepted and expected of existing methods and approaches from a wide array of
protocols for undertaking valuation. All valuation traditions disciplines are considered as “valuation processes”: they
are heavily informed and influenced by cultural context, outline how values of nature can be identified, interpreted,
epistemologies and worldviews. or assessed. This offers valuators a range of methods to
choose from and combine, to fit to the purpose of the
Ideally, a valuation method is informed by an explicit valuation for the specific decision-making context. While
theoretical framework that outlines key assumptions this is an opportunity to improve the practice of valuation,
about how and why people value nature (Figure 3.6). It it represents a challenge for the assessment of methods.
informs procedures for data collection (value elicitation), Applications of methods to real world decisions are to a
data analysis, data interpretation (values articulation). In large extent unique to a specific event in space and time.
some cases, validation procedures might also be spelt out Thus, evaluation criteria for valuation quality vary between
and certain ways of communicating and presenting the disciplines and approaches and comparing a sufficient
results might be encouraged (e.g., as maps or narratives number of studies with the same configuration of methods
or graphical representations). In real world applications or in similar contexts is rarely possible.
of valuation methods, however, various theories inform a
valuation study or mixed procedures are undertaken to elicit Valuation sensu IPBES includes diverse epistemologies,
and articulate values. Moreover, valuation methods might different views on nature-human relations, and recognizes
provide specific guidelines for some aspect of valuation academic traditions in social and environmental sciences that
– such as how values are to be elicited – while providing address and study values in seemingly contrasting ways,
little to no instructions on which data analysis techniques albeit for similar or complementary goals. This assessment
to apply, while other methods/approaches provide the aims to bridge academic and societal boundaries and
Valuation process consists of:
STEP 1 - CONSTRUCT A LEGITIMATE PROCESS
STEP 2 - DEFINE THE PURPOSE OF THE VALUATION
STEP 3 - BOUNDING THE SCOPE OF THE VALUATION

Procedures for:
STEP 4 - METHOD SELECTION AND APPLICATION

Data
collection
STEP 5 - ARTICULATING RESULTS IN DECISION MAKING
Data
analysis
Theory
framework Validation
Informs:
Interpreta-
tion
Communi-
cation
Approaches and methods for:
• Single procedure:
• Several procedures:
• Full valuation process:
Figure 3 6 The five steps in the valuation process (see 3.4) are realised through interacting
procedures, underpinned by theory.
Valuation methods can offer a full set of procedures for undertaking all steps of the valuation process or only some procedures.
Valuators often must combine complementary methods to ensure that all relevant steps are addressed. Valuators are not always
explicit about the theories underpinning their methodological approach. They may also report specific techniques that they used
without describing the precise procedures or methods informing their study.
138
broaden the set of methods and approaches available to 3.1.2 Why assess valuation
reliably and legitimately generate information on values of methods and approaches?
nature in order to improve nature-related decision-making.
In this vein, Chapter 3 uses the term “valuation methods” The choice of valuation methods has a strong bearing on
as a shorthand for a broad and inclusive collection of which values and whose values are elicited and how they
“valuation methods and approaches”, recognizing a are articulated. This, in turn, can affect decisions informed
wide range of valuation traditions and practices that are by valuations.
currently accepted as valid ways to undertake valuation.
By adhering to established procedures, the key features The urgency of the global environmental crises and the
defining valuation methods is that they are approved by challenges in making progress towards agreed sustainability
a community of practice, and that they can be taught, goals provide increasing opportunities to apply valuation
learned, and repeatedly applied by valuation practitioners as part of the governance of nature and human-nature
who are acquainted with them. Having originated from relations. However, the capacity of valuation methods to fulfil
different cultures, disciplinary traditions and schools of their intended goals and to inform decision-making is highly
thought, methods embody different ways of thinking about variable and depends on how valuations are conducted.
how to identify values, measure them or compare them Knowledge on the capacity of methods needs to be
to each other. IPLC valuation methods and practices are advanced, and decision-makers and practitioners need
still in the process of being systematised and this chapter guidance on which methods to apply, the conditions under
acknowledges its importance for inclusive valuation of nature. which they can be applied, their underlying assumptions,
what type of information they can generate and their
The origin of valuation (elicitation and articulation of values) limitations and resource needs.
is ancient; valuation has informed and guided societies in
decision-making about nature since early human history. The chapter provides an overview of available methods,
Ancient valuation practices and their modern iterations characterises methods based on their shared attributes
continue to generate information about values today; and assesses their applicability for different purposes and
they represent a body of valuation tradition that is the points to key sources for guidance on their application to
core source of information about values for individuals, support decision-making. The chapter evaluates for what
communities and indigenous people worldwide. In the purpose methods have been applied. This includes the
context of human history, the valuation methods and types of values that have been assessed, the context in
approaches that have been developed in academia are which valuation methods have been applied and whose
fairly recent; while they may have once drawn from ancient values have been involved in the valuation processes.
practices, they have subsequently diverged and evolved Building on earlier assessments, we consider valuation
over time, usually along disciplinary lines. The methods and methods from a broader suite of scientific disciplines
approaches taught today in academia are mostly informed (natural, social and humanities) which are described in
by western worldviews and ways of generating knowledge, scholarly literature, grey literature, as well as indigenous
however. Understanding the practice of valuation solely from and local knowledge (ILK) sources. The potential and
the dominant worldview of western science can obscure limitations of the wide range of valuation methods are
and undermine other values and knowledge systems. This assessed to provide policy relevant guidance on how
chapter acknowledges and recognizes diverse worldviews valuation can be improved to better support decision-
such as perspectives and knowledge held by indigenous making.
peoples and local communities about valuation of nature.
Some indigenous worldviews elicit a holistic view of nature 3.1.2.1 Classifying methods to facilitate
in which humans are part of and not detached from nature;
their assessment
this is a vital starting point for understanding how evidence
is conceptualised, acquired and shared within IPLC contexts
(LaDuke, 1999; McGregor, 2004). Assessing IPLC valuation Existing typologies of valuation methods
practices and procedures solely through the lenses of Numerous classification systems exist to organise
western science approaches risks devaluing the interest valuation methods and approaches into groups with
of IPLC as “right holders” in valuation of nature exercises. shared characteristics or typologies that highlight key
Comprehension of Indigenous and local worldviews and distinctions between them. Common classifications group
knowledge systems allows demonstrating the diversity methods based on the way methods articulate values (e.g.,
of valuation. This highlights the need to capture the full monetary/non-monetary), by disciplinary perspective (e.g.,
breadth of IPLC multidimensional interconnections of biophysical/economic/socio-cultural), based on how they
values or principles which inform valuation practices. This elicit values (stated/revealed preference methods) or based
also requires an understanding of evidence within an IPLC on features of the elicitation process itself (participatory/non-
context (Box 3.5). participatory).
139
An early typology distinguishes direct and indirect methods Health valuation methods aims to value effects on
as one dimension; and observed versus hypothetical human health. They are used to assess how changes
behaviour as another key dimension of valuation methods in nature affect the quality of life through health metrics
(Freeman III et al., 2014). This classification has influenced describing physical and mental health at the core of
many subsequent refinements of economic valuation human well-being.
methods typologies. De Groot et al. (2002) includes group
valuation as a distinct valuation method into economic According to IPBES integrative approaches offer
valuation methods classifications. opportunities to bridge the different valuation perspectives
while also acknowledging ‘the existence of different
The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity (TEEB) perceptions of what constitutes a “good life” across
initiative builds on earlier classifications but introduces social groups and cultures and acknowledging the role of
biophysical valuation methods to assess value based on the institutions, including social norms that underpin human-
intrinsic properties of ecosystems measured in biophysical nature relations’ (Pascual et al., 2017).
units (e.g., in time, energy, materials, land surface, etc.) and
are referred to as physical costs (TEEB, 2010). Deliberative Further valuation typologies exist in literature, among
methods are also included alongside stated and revealed others Raymond et al. (2014) suggest a typology of
preference methods in the TEEB typology. valuation approaches which categorises valuation
into two main types: instrumental and deliberative
IPBES typology of valuation approaches and perspectives: approaches. They argue that each approach involves
IPBES’s Methodological guidance to values and valuation distinct perspectives on rationality, different processes of
recognizes five perspectives (economic, biophysical, socio- value elicitation, particular types of representativeness,
cultural, ILK/Holistic and Health valuation) (IPBES, 2015). and various degrees of decision-maker involvement (from
The five perspectives represent the different ways in which Tadaki et al., 2017). The typology proposed by Tadaki
the term “value” is understood and subsequently analysed et al. (2017) operationalize valuation concepts along the
by different disciplines and knowledge systems: degree of civic participation. The four notions of value they
identify are: value as a magnitude of preference, value as
Economic valuation methods are founded in welfare contribution to a goal, values as individual priorities, and
economics. Economic values are based on individual values as relations. The authors argue that when valuators
preferences, reflecting individual needs, wants, conceptualise values as magnitudes of preference or as
perceptions and worldviews, as well as the scarcities contributions to a goal, they tend to operationalize these
imposed by nature and by the social and economic in technical valuation tools, including monetary valuation,
contexts within which people live. which allow experts to tightly structure (and potentially
limit) citizen participation in decision-making. On the
Cultural and social valuation methods aim to value other hand, when values are conceptualised as priorities,
nature and its contributions to people by discovering valuation provides a way of describing individuals’
the psychological, historical, cultural, social, ecological priorities and considering how these priorities differ across
and political contexts and conditions, as well as a wider population usually through structured surveys.
the worldviews and social perceptions that shape Finally, when values are conceptualised as relations,
individually-held or commonly-shared values. valuation is generally used to foster deliberative forms of
civic participation.
Biophysical approaches assess value based on the
intrinsic properties of objects by measuring underlying While any classification has its potential merits, especially for
physical parameters. They generally aim to examine their specific research or assessment purpose, they would
the ecological importance of attributes, qualities, severely limit the assessment of valuation in this chapter:
and quantities characterising nature’s condition Most typologies are restrictive to economic valuation
and functioning. methods, while Raymond et al. (2017) and Tadaki et al.
(2017) distinguish valuation approaches only by the extent
ILK/Holistic valuation systems aim to value the of involvement of stakeholders. Lastly, IPBES’s typology is
relationships and dynamics established among peoples divided across disciplinary traditions, thematic focus and
and nature regarding the regeneration or reproduction knowledge systems and ignores the fact that approaches
of the systems of life of Mother Earth. They follow (e.g., a deliberative approach) and even methods (e.g.,
a rights-based approach; considering that living in participatory mapping) are often shared across these
balance and harmony with Mother Earth is based on disciplines. Furthermore, pitching “economic” versus
the complementarity of the rights of Mother Earth and “sociocultural” or “IPLC related” versus “biophysical” risks to
the rights of peoples to their holistic development and further polarise disciplinary or epistemic discussions rather
eradication of poverty. than bridge them.
140
3.1.2.2 A discipline-neutral grouping of Behaviour-based valuation: Quantifies or qualifies the

valuation methods: introduction to the importance of nature for people based on what people
method families do with/in nature. This can be based on observations of
rituals and traditions, of time and efforts spent for nature
This chapters’ broad and inclusive definition of valuation and or resources and money spent to experience nature.
explicit inclusion of methods and approaches from broad This information can be derived from direct observations
disciplines and academic traditions, that elicit and articulate of people or indirectly from databases or descriptions
values to enable decision-making in diverse contexts, are of behaviours.
unamenable to existing typologies.
Statement-based valuation: Quantifies or qualifies the
With a view to compare a wide array of valuation methods importance of nature for people based on what people
and approaches emerging from diverse disciplinary state about the importance of nature and human-nature
fields and traditions, we have grouped methods using a relationships. These statements can be narratives,
discipline-neutral lens. Here, methods have been classified importance scores or willingness to pay (or receive)
into four “method families”. The first three families are money for changes in aspects in nature and human-
distinguishable from each other by a single criterion: their nature relations. The statements can be obtained
‘source’ of information on values. Values can be derived from direct interactions with individuals or groups of
from the environment or nature, from people’s behaviours, individuals. The valuation is mainly based on interviews,
and from people’s statements. As such, methods can surveys or group discussions.
be grouped as nature-based valuation, behaviour-based
valuation, or statement-based valuation. A fourth family Integrated valuation: Combines several sources of
– integrated valuation – captures methods aimed at information on the importance of nature for people with
characterising and articulating values by bringing together the goal to integrate them towards a decision-making
and synthesising different types of value information. We process. Integration can happen through integrated
present a brief description of each method family here. modelling, deliberative processes or aggregation
A more thorough review of each family is presented in procedures to bring together value estimates. While
Section 3.2. these methods draw on different other valuation
methods from the former groups, they do not sit
Nature-based valuation: Quantifies or qualifies aspects exclusively in either of these and have the specific
of the physical world which are of importance to goal of bringing values together from multiple sources.
people. This can be based on -or derived from- physical Several integration methods (e.g., participatory rural
measurements, but also on expert information and local appraisal and multi-criteria decision analysis) can be
or specialised knowledge. considered decision support tools that explicitly aim
Statement-based
valuation
Behaviour-based
Behaviour-based
valuation
valuation
(12%)
Statement-based
Good quality valuation
of life (11%)
Anthropogenic Direct drivers

Nature’s assets
contributions Natural drivers
Institutions and Integrated
to people governance and Anthropogenic valuation
other indirect drivers
drivers (9%)
Integrated
Nature valuation
Nature-based
valuation
(68%)
Nature-based
valuation
Figure 3 7 Chapter 3 discipline-neutral valuation method families and their coverage of the
IPBES conceptual framework (Díaz et al., 2015) and abundance of the method
families in the valuation literature5.
5. Systematic PCIV (Principles, Criteria, Indicators, Verifiers) review on valuation methods (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4404678).
141
to bring information on synthesising values to choose Venkatachalam, 2004)6. Methodological reviews of nature
between alternative options. valuation solely on non-economic valuation methods,
such as socio-cultural valuation or indigenous and local
Essentially, the families cut across existing classifications, knowledge-based valuation are rare. This may be because
and each method family consists of quantitative and application of non-monetary valuation methods of nature are
qualitative valuation methods that are associated with fewer, although this is changing (Chan & Satterfield, 2020).
biophysical, economic as well as socio-cultural approaches Very few studies exist that value (either in monetary or non-
(Figure 3.7). By sharing the same value sources, methods monetary terms) actual biophysical changes in ecosystems
within families share similar ways of eliciting values and are (Chan & Satterfield, 2020).
confronted with many of the same limitations. Consequently,
even though families contain methods that have been A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature
developed by different disciplines, the innate capacities and identified 41 review papers on methodological reviews
limitations imposed by the source of values become shared mainly focused on economic valuation methods. Among
attributes of the family. This makes the methods families these review papers, there are some thematic reviews
approach highly amenable to assessment of methods at a that specifically focus on economic valuation of either
higher grouping level that is still relevant for understanding biodiversity (Bartkowski et al., 2015) or ecosystem services
their potential and shortcomings for decision-making and – of a particular type – e.g., cultural (Cheng et al., 2019),
to some extent – independent of academic disciplines. or regional (Wangai et al., 2016), ecosystem-specific –
e.g., mangroves (Barbier, 2016; Vo et al., 2012), or their
While the method families intuitively map onto the IPBES changes driven by a particular cause – land degradation
conceptual framework of human-nature relations (Figure and restoration (Turner et al., 2015). In contrast, there are
3.7), it should be noted that the classification of methods numerous reviews on specific economic valuation methods,
families is not meant to be an intercultural nor a multi- e.g., 35 reviews on contingent valuation7.
worldview approach. It is a pragmatic approach that has been
conceived for this specific assessment process. It is heavily Numerous databases on valuation methods and
informed by a western science worldview that is founded approaches have been developed and serve as a useful
on the notion that values are sourced from a limited set of resource for researchers, policy-makers, and valuation
places (the environment and humans) and that methods can practitioners for selecting methods for valuation applications
indeed be classified into distinct yet overlapping groups. The and decision-making. See Annexes 3.2 and 3.3 for a
method family classification does not account for worldviews collection of databases on valuation studies and best
that consider additional value sources such as ancestors practice resources, respectively.
and other non-human entities, as is the case in many IPLC
contexts. In this vein, the method families do not properly Valuation assessments have tended to take a disciplinary
include IPLC practices and methods of valuation. approach, providing a partial picture of the types of methods
available to consider. Assessing all available methods
conjointly – irrespective of the disciplines and academic
3.1.3 Previous assessments and traditions that developed them – can help integration of
significant reviews of valuation diverse values by increasing availability of approaches
tailored to the requirements of different contexts: a “more
methods
plural” valuation (see Chapter 1 and Figure 3.7) (Tress et al.,
Some notable assessments and major reviews on biodiversity 2005). Moreover, valuation also occurs in non-policy contexts
and ecosystem services have been conducted in the past such as in indigenous and local communities, and in the
at different spatial scales – national, regional, and global. private sector. Comparing methods across disciplines and
A brief description and the extent of valuation methods practices requires an interdisciplinary and inclusive approach.
considered in these assessments and reviews are given in
Figure 3.8 and Annex 3.1. Among these, The Economics In light of this, the primary objective of this chapter is to
of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB, 2010), the United provide an overview of existing academic methods and
Kingdom National Ecosystem Assessments (UK NEA, 2011, their application, and guidance to valuation specialists
2014) and the United Nation’s System of Environmental- who work with practitioners and decision-makers looking
Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) to incorporate valuation into decision-making processes.
have assessed some valuation methods. To achieve this, the chapter analyses the goals, principles,
capacities and applications of valuation methods; and
The methodological reviews in the scientific literature are
dominated by an economic valuation perspective (e.g. 6. Previous comparative assessments of valuation methods (https://doi.
org/10.5281/zenodo.4404320).
Bartkowski et al., 2015; de Groot et al., 2020; Hanley &
7. Previous comparative assessments of valuation methods (https://doi.
Czajkowski, 2019; Schild et al., 2018; Turner et al., 2015; org/10.5281/zenodo.4404320). (See document B).
142
IPBES Land
Degradation and
Restoration
Assessment
Land degradation /
restoration and
biodiversity / nature’s
contributions to
people (none)
MEA and its five TEEB assessment Corporate World Ocean IPBES Regional Global Biodiversity
thematic synthesis Mainstreaming the Ecosystem Service Assessment I Assessments Outlook (GBO-5)
Ecosystem services values of Review First global (Africa, Americas, Progress report on
and human biodiverisy and Guidelines for integrated marine Asia-Pacific, Europe 20 global
wellbeing (none) ecosystem services identifying business assesment (none) and Central Asia) biodiversity targets
into decision risk and Nature’s (none)
making (some) opportunities arising contributions to
from ecosystem people and good
service change quality of life by
(none) region (none)

2005
2009
2010
2011
2012
2014
2015
2016
2018
2019
2020 2021
US Environmental UK National UK National IPBES Pollination Global Environment Dasgupta Review

Protection Agency Ecosystem Ecosystem Assessment Outlook (GEO-6) Economics of
- Science Advisory Assessment (UK Assessment (UK Pollinators, Review of the status biodiversity (some)
Board (USEPA-SAB) NEA) NEA follow-up) pollination and food and trends of the
Integrated and Nature, its benefits to Nature, its benefits production (none) environment since
System of
expanded approach society and to society and 1997 (none)
Environmental-
to ecological contribution to contribution to
IPBES Scenarios Economic
valuation (some) economic prosperity economic prosperity
and Modelling IPBES Global Accounting -
(some) (some)
Assessment Assessment of Ecosystem
Scenarios of Biodiversity and Accounting
biodiversity and Ecosystem (SEEA-EA)
ecosystem services Services Valuation methods
(none) Nature’s (some)
contributions to
people and good
quality of life (none) World Ocean
Assessment II
Review
environmental,
economic, social
aspects of the
world’s oceans
(none)
Figure 3 8 Timeline of major biodiversity and ecosystem service assessments and major
reviews, their main focus and the extent of the review of valuation methods (in
parenthesis).
provides an assessment of the potential and limitations of 3.1.4.1 The six assessment questions in
existing methods for informing decision-making processes. Chapter 3
The six questions guiding valuation methods assessment in
3.1.4 The scope and evidence base Chapter 3 are:
for the chapter
Assessment question 1: Why is valuation undertaken?
The objective of the chapter is formally detailed in the (Why are valuation methods applied? What purpose do
scoping document for the values assessment. Several they seek to address?)
statements in the general part of the scoping document are
relevant to Chapter 3, in addition to the specific scoping Assessment question 2: Which methods are applied?
text. To achieve this mission and to shed more clarity on the (Which methods and approaches have been
specific objectives of the chapter the scoping statement was applied to undertake valuation? To what extent are
framed around six chapter-specific assessment questions. methods combined?)
These questions inform the chapter’s rationale and reporting
structure. A brief description of each question is presented Assessment question 3: Which values are elicited?
below, providing a short justification for each and pointing to (Which types of values do valuations aim to elicit? How
the evidence that was assessed by Chapter 3 to generate do valuations capture the diverse ways in which humans
responses for each question value nature? Which values are often or rarely elicited?)
143
Assessment question 4: When and where are operationalised, specifically for the systematic literature
valuations undertaken? (When, where, and at which review that was undertaken to assess application of
spatial and governance scales have valuation methods valuation (see 3.2.3).
been applied? In which socio-ecological contexts have
they been undertaken?) In the case of assessment question 1 (why is valuation
undertaken?), information on purposes for valuation is
Assessment question 5: Whose values are derived from an overview and previous assessments
considered? (Are valuation methods inclusive and do review, thematic reviews of different types of methods,
they allow for meaningful participation of stakeholders from a systematic review of scientific and grey literature
(including IPLC)? How do valuations deal with on valuation applications, and from ILK.
legitimacy, power and justice issues?)
The assessment is tasked with providing an overview
Assessment question 6: How reliable and feasible is of existing types of valuation methods and approaches
valuation? (What are the limitations of valuations? How (assessment question 2: which valuation methods?).
are validity, consistency and transparency considered The main source of evidence for assessing this
in current applications? How feasible is it to include question are thematic reviews of methods. These are
valuation methods and approaches in decision- enriched with material from a systematic review of
making processes?) method applications in the context of nature, nature’s
contributions to people and human-nature relationships.
3.1.4.2 The evidence generation process Quantitative data from a literature search as well as
information from an in-depth review were synthesised
Given the broad definition of nature valuation used in the for individual types of methods.
values assessment and cognizant of the fact that – due to
terminology and disciplinary differences – many valuation Evidence of how valuation methods address diverse
studies may not self-identify as such, this chapter therefore values (assessment question 3) is an important aspect
casts a broad net to capture literature and non-written of the values assessment. This question helped identify
material that represents the body of available knowledge on whether different methods are able to capture a full
nature valuation. As such, the chapter bases its evidence range of diverse values or are limited to a smaller set
on literature reviews (primarily from scholarly journals, but of values (including broad and specific values, diverse
also from publicly available grey literature including previous value targets and life frames) (see Chapter 2). The
IPBES assessments), reviews of methods guides and main source of evidence to assess this question is a
handbooks, and reviews of reports of IPBES ILK dialogues systematic in-depth review of valuation applications in
that were conducted as part of this and previous IPBES scientific and grey literature. Especially for broad values,
assessments. Where evidence was scarce, essays and this is enriched with findings from ILK.
other contributions were solicited directly from experts. This
section describes how the evidence was sourced and the A basic spatio-temporal inventory of applications of
process that was used for consolidating, synthesising and, valuation (assessment question 4) – according to the
in some cases, analysing the information to generate the main method types – is a requirement for understanding
results and findings. gaps in and ways forward for valuation. Also, the
context in which a valuation method is applied is a
The six assessment questions described in Section 3.1.4.1 main factor in understanding its applicability to different
represent the line of questioning that Chapter 3 has socio-ecological settings. The main source of evidence
taken in order to provide the most current understanding is a quantitative output of the literature search, which
and critique of contemporary valuation. As depicted in stretches across all global regions and a historical
Section 3.1.1, the chapter uses a broad working definition review of literature.
of valuation so that it can include the wide diversity of
methods and approaches that are undertaken today by The question of whose values? (assessment question 5)
different disciplines, traditions, sectors and actors. In pertains to the perspectives of people holding different
the interest of representing that diversity, multiple types worldviews, potential to include diverse sources of
and sources of evidence were consulted, aware that the knowledge, and consideration of power, gender, age,
assessment questions cannot be satisfactorily answered by and distribution within and between generations. The
a single approach (Table 3.2). This section first describes two main sources of evidence are (1) a systematic
the types of literature reviews that were conducted and review of valuation applications evidencing participation,
the additional consultations that were undertaken to representation and procedural justice aspects of the
complement the literature reviews (see 3.2.2). followed by a application of valuation methods, and (2) information
detailed description of how the assessment questions were obtained from ILK-assessment activities.
144
Table 3 2 Summary of evidence sourcing methods applied in Chapter 3 (Source: adapted

from table 1 of Grant & Booth (2009) 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.
Type of Assessment
Type of sourcing Evidence selection Analysis and output
approaches question
Review of method State-of-the-art review Aims for comprehensive Current state of knowledge, 1, 2 and 3
families8 searching of current literature overview of challenges and
about valuation methods and debates
approaches
Review of reviews9 Umbrella review Qualitative assessment of Research gaps (what remains 2 and 6
existing reviews of valuation unknown), recommendations to
methods (based on both improve the elicitation of values
primary studies and grey
literature)
Systematic review Systematic in-depth review Aims for exhaustive, What valuation experience can 1-6
of methods comprehensive searching of reveal about methods and how
applications10, 11 reported valuation experiences it can inform recommendations
for practice
Thematic State-of-the-art review Aims for comprehensive Current state of knowledge 2, 3, 6
reviews12 searching of current literature of specific themes; trends,
on specific themes deemed caveats and unresolved issues
relevant to valuation in valuation of nature
ILK dialogues13 Contributions by ILK-holders Aims for complementary Findings on IPLC perspectives, 1, 2, 3
in dialogues organised with evidence on valuation from adaptations in chapter
IPBES ILK liaison group; IPLC perspectives conceptual and analytical
documented in reports framework, search terms
and analysis criteria for other
reviews
Consultations with Written responses to questions, Aims for complementary Content analysis and narratives 1, 2, 3
ILK experts14 accompanied by other material, evidence on valuation by IPLCs to better describe IPLC
discussion via phone, email for IPLC purposes valuation
and in-person
Reliability and feasibility (assessment question 6) is Resource needs are assessed using evidence from
an important aspect for the use of valuation methods answering assessment questions 2 and 6. The multi-
to inform decision-making and policy processes. The pronged approach that is applied in this chapter has
evidence used for addressing this question includes provided a rich volume of valuation material to consult
an in-depth systematic review of valuation applications and assess, allowing – on the one hand – to confidently
to document how validity and reliability are addressed draw conclusions on multiple aspects of valuation, and
in valuation applications. This is enriched with findings on the other, to identify contested issues, inconclusive
derived from thematic reviews on individual types of evidence, knowledge gaps and future directions in the field
methods (grouped into method families) and other of valuation. Chapter authors are fully aware of the bias
targeted reviews. of the evidence base towards English-language literature
and acknowledge that despite explicit targeting of IPLC
Together, these assessment questions provide evidence approaches and principles, most of the sources used
to the assessment using the “3R framework” to assess are still informed by western knowledge systems and
valuation methods. Relevance is assessed by combining epistemologies (Altbach, 2007; Ammon, 2012; Hakkarainen
the evidence from assessment questions 1-4. Robustness et al., 2020; Rasmussen & Montgomery, 2018). This bias
is evaluated based on assessment questions 5 and 6. is a system-wide shortcoming of contemporary knowledge
generation that reflects historical imbalances that persist to
8. Systematic review on Method Families (https://doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.4404436). this date (Carter, 2004; Sutherland et al., 2014; Tengö et
9. Previous comparative assessments of valuation methods (https://doi. al., 2017).
org/10.5281/zenodo.4404320).
10. Systematic PCIV (Principles, Criteria, Indicators, Verifiers) review on
valuation methods (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4404678). In this regard, it is important to note that the assessment
11. Valuation Atlas (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6468906). on IPLC aspects for the chapter served as an exploratory
12. Systematic review on Method Families (https://doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.4404436). mechanism aimed at addressing existing knowledge
13. Reviews on IPLC approaches to valuation (https://doi.org/10.5281/ gaps in the literature about IPLC valuation methods and
zenodo.4422079).
approaches. It is by no means an exhaustive assessment of
14. Analysis of Contributions on Values and Valuation Methods by ILK experts
and holders (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4404612). the range of IPLC valuation methods and approaches. The
145
results presented in Section 3.2.4 should not be generalised what it is today, including in IPLC contexts. The section
beyond the IPLC contexts that they describe. demonstrates the characteristics of different valuation
methodologies, structured using the methods families,
The five types of evidence sourcing applied in this chapter highlighting some of the key developments in valuation
are complementary and include “review of reviews”, “topical methods. This also contextualises the trend of growing
review of methods families”, “systematic review of methods inclusiveness in the valuation process, the continued search
applications”, “thematic reviews”, “ILK dialogues” and for ways to integrate more types of values of multiple
“consultations with ILK experts” (see Table 3.2). stakeholders, as well as the growing interest by indigenous
scholars in developing valuation methods and metrics that
In summary, this chapter is based on multiple types of better capture values as they are lived and transmitted in
evidence sourcing to derive a comprehensive understanding IPLC contexts.
of various aspects of valuation methods. In the review
process, the authors considered qualitative descriptions
of methods, derived quantitative data from applications 3.2.1 Valuation Atlas: the diversity
to investigate how methods have been used in different and global distribution of valuation
valuation contexts, and engaged with indigenous knowledge
practice
holders to broaden the evidence base, the analytical
approaches and the conceptual understanding. As an academic field, nature valuation is relatively young
but involves a wide range of academic disciplines (Figure
3.9). Although valuation literature is dominated by work
from natural sciences disciplines, it extends across to social
3.2 THE RICHNESS OF sciences and humanities to include disciplines such as
economics and anthropology and inter-disciplinary work.
VALUATION For the purposes of this assessment, it should be noted that
we only included biophysical and social assessments with a
The objective of this section is to give an account of the nature valuation purpose15.
richness of nature valuation in terms of the abundance of
methodologies that exist to undertake valuation, and the Although assessing nature, its importance and our
diversity of valuation disciplines and traditions. In addition interactions with nature have a long history, references
to describing how valuation has evolved in academia, to nature valuation as an explicit undertaking that applies
this section also provides an assessment of how the
current practice of valuation of nature has developed to 15. Valuation Atlas (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6468906).
9000
Ecology Marine Freshwater Biology Multidiscipli- Water Geogra- Zoology
(28,672) (6,563) nary science resources phy (3,114)
8000 (4,215) (4,143) physical
(3,183)
PUBLISHED PAPERS
7000
Forestry
6000 (6,519)
Environmental Green Econo-

5000 Oceano-
sciences sustainable mics
graphy
(23,395) technology (2,465)
(2,648)
4000 Environmental (2,854)
studies Evolutio-
(6,501) nary
Geosciences
3000 multidisciplinary biology
(2,528)
(2,764)
Biodiversity Agriculture Fisheries
2000
conservation Plant sciences multidisciplinary (1,855)
(11,131) (5,900) (2,001)
1000 Engineering
Entomology environmental
(2,716)
(1,898)
1985
2001
2002
2003
2004
2018
2005
2019
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
1982
2013
1983
2014
1984
1986
2015
1987
2016
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1981
1997
1998
1999
2000
2017
Figure 3 9 Trend and disciplinary mix in nature valuation based on Web of Science.
146
Pre 1990 1990 - 2000
2000 - 2010 Post 2010
DENSITY OF STUDIES
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Figure 3 10 Decadal country distribution of the corpus of nature valuation studies

(n= 48,781)17 .
specific methods and approaches are relatively recent. In for the global pattern. However, the analysis indicates that
academia, methods to assess the values of nature were over the whole period: fewer studies have been carried
mentioned in only a few publications in the 1980s, for out in countries with lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
example. Between 1990 and 2000, however, reported and more nature valuation studies where biodiversity and
valuations in literature increased tenfold and increased by environmental degradation is higher (for example, places
another fivefold between 2000 and 2020 (Figure 3.10). with low Biodiversity Intactness Index, or high rates of use of
Valuations are now conducted worldwide and since the pesticides, or high wood removals). Valuation studies have
1990s all methods families have been applied across also mostly been conducted where environmental protection
the global region. During the decade of the Millennium is lower (for example, places with poor management
Ecosystem Assessment (2001-2005), valuation studies effectiveness in National Protected Areas, or with high
tended to be concentrated in a few countries (namely, rates of corruption perception index)18. Given the scarcity of
United States, Brazil, India, United Kingdom). Between literature on IPLC valuation, it is not yet possible to identify
2008–2018, the concentration of valuation studies in a global pattern of how valuation methods and approaches
those countries increased with only some diversification to vary across IPLCs (see 3.2.4).
European Union countries, African countries, and China16.
Valuation has been conducted in all habitat types, but to
To understand the relationship between the frequency of varying degrees and with only small variations between
valuation studies and the biological and socioeconomic method types (Figure 3.11). Unlike the de Groot et al.
context in which they are conducted, a Pearson correlation (2020) study on ecosystem services specifically, which
analysis was used, to compare the number of valuation reported that valuation of water is the most frequently
studies, the IPBES Core Indicators, and a chosen set of conducted, this review indicates that valuation of forests
other relevant indicators. The correlations are generally was the most abundant, followed by cultivated areas and
low and the indicators do not provide strong explanations freshwater habitats. Nature-based valuation methods, for
16. Valuation Atlas (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6468906). 18. Systematic review on valuation uptake (https://doi.org/10.5281/
17. (Idem). zenodo.4391335).
147
Deserts 100%
Deep sea Aquaculture
Savannah
Mountain habitats
Shrublands Forests
75%
Wetlands /
peatlands
Urban / 50%
Semi-urban
Grasslands
25%
Cultivated areas
(None/unclear/
other)
0%
at d
at d
at d
at d
Coastal areas
lu se
lu se
lu se
lu ate
n
n
Inland surface
va -ba
va t-ba
va r-ba
io
io
io
io
va egr
water
t
en
u
ur
In
io
em
at
av
N
h
at
Be
St
(None/unclear/other) Aquaculture Wetlands / peatlands Deserts
Deep sea Cultivated areas Shrublands Savannah
Coastal areas Urban / Semi-urban Grasslands Forests
Inland surface water Mountain habitats
Figure 3 11 Valuations per habitat type post 2010, using broad categories from the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened
Species Habitat Classification Scheme (IUCN, 2012).
On the left, percentage abundance of valuations, on the right, distribution per method family (systematic in-depth review n=1163).
100%
1%
15%
75%
32%
50%
26%
25%
26% 0%
at d
at d
at d
at d
lu se
lu se
lu se
lu ate
n
n
va -ba
va t-ba
va r-ba
io
io
io
io
va egr
e
t
en
ou
ur
In
em
at
vi
ha
N
at
Be
St
Unclear/none Regional ecosystem/organism population Field plot/individual organism

Global ecosystem/organism population Local ecosystem/organism population
Figure 3 12 Biophysical scale at which valuations were performed.

On the left, percentage abundance of valuations; on the right, distribution per method family (systematic in-depth review n=1163).
Note that valuations often do not focus on a biophysical scale, but for example on the values of a social group or community.
148
example, were mostly applied to forest systems and were Laurans et al., 2013). To evaluate the evidence for this,
less likely to be used in urban environments. we applied Laurans et al.’s (2013) classification system of
decision-making purposes based on the intended use of the
Valuations have been conducted at multiple spatial scales, valuation: i) providing information (“informative”); ii) assisting
although approximately one third of the reviewed studies with prioritisations (“decisive”); and iii) designing technical
do not specify the biophysical scale to which the values features of policies (“technical”) (see 4.6).
relate. Valuation studies that assess specific biophysical
properties tend to do so at all scales from very local up to The most frequently reported purpose of valuation is
regional ecosystem scales (Figure 3.12 left). Statement- informative (Figure 3.14) followed by decisive purposes
based valuation studies were the least likely to report on the indicating that valuations are frequently aimed at providing
biophysical scale of the study (Figure 3.12 right). This is to decision-makers with recommendations about the most
be expected given that statement-based methodologies do desirable course of action. Nonetheless, studies rarely
not necessarily require linking people’s values to biophysical report using valuation procedures actively in decision-
locations, flows or stocks (see 3.2.2.2). making processes suggesting that the recommendations
they provide may not actually be channelled into real
The valuations are however clear on the administrative or decisions (see 4.6 for further analysis of uptake of
policy scale the valuation is relevant for. It is very clear that valuation). Finally, few studies report on the use of valuation
the practice of valuation and therefore the experiences to to design policy instruments (technical purpose). This
draw from in decision-making have been predominantly somehow contrasts with the academic focus on correction
generated at the sub-national scale (see Figure 3.13). of externalities through economic instruments, which have
The evidence also shows that this is the case across all justified the development of many of the valuation methods
method families. over the last few decades (see 3.2.2.2, 3.2.2.3). A slightly
higher fraction of studies conducted having technical
3.2.1.1 Reasons (purposes) for valuation design purposes are from statement- and behaviour-based
valuations, however, variations across method families
It has been suggested in the literature that valuations are small.
have fallen short of their often-cited intentions to enable
decision-making to account for the values of nature (e.g.,
100%
6%
9%
2% 75%
11%
50%
25%
72%
0%
at d
at d
at d
at d
lu se
lu se
lu se
lu ate
n
n
va -ba
va t-ba
va r-ba
io
io
io
io
va egr
e
t
en
ou
ur
In
m
at
vi
ha
e
N
at
Be
St
Above national Indigenous territories Sub-national

Protected aeas National
Figure 3 13 Valuations per administrative scale.

On the left, percentage abundance of valuations, on the right, distribution per method family (systematic in-depth review
n=1163). Scale includes overlapping categories in order to capture both spatial biophysical and administrative aspects (including
IPLC designations).
149
1% 100%
2%
4%
9% 21%
75%
5%
2%
50%
16% 25%
33%
2% 0%
5%
at d
at d
at d
at d
lu se
lu se
lu se
lu ate
n
n
va -ba
va t-ba
va r-ba
io
io
io
io
va egr
e
t
en
u
ur
In
io
em
at
av
N
h
at
Be
St
INFORMATIVE DECISIVE TECHNICAL
Formative or affirmative Recommendations & guidance Price-setting

Awareness raising Participation Damage compensation
Justification Prioritization on tradeoffs Unclear
Accounting & indicators Environmental management
Figure 3 14 Stated purposes of valuations.

Note that actual uptake or use is largely unreported.
3.2.1.2 Which values and whose values urban ecology studies testing links between urban tree
are assessed cover and urban wildlife to infrastructure damage, human
health impacts (asthma and plant-related volatiles), crime
Nearly half (46%) of the valuation studies assess nature’s and injustice.
contributions to people (material and non-material), 33%
assess nature itself or the maintenance of options, whereas Whether implicitly or explicitly, all valuation studies –
28% of the studies we reviewed assessed some aspects of including nature-based valuations – manifest the values of
quality of life (Figure 3.15). ‘someone’ (individuals or specific groups). However, in over
half of the studies, authors do not explicitly associate values
This review does not assess the concept of disservices with people (Figure 3.16). Valuations that explicitly assess
or negative nature relations per se, although the valuation the values of people mainly elicit values from individuals and
literature assessed does inherently include value indicators households and to a lesser extent the values of groups/
of negative nature relations (such as through costs communities or societies as a whole.
and damages). Most valuations report on the positive
contributions of nature to people and societies. A substantial The way in which people are included in valuation has
proportion of valuation studies, however, reported on the evolved over the last decades in line with the general
undesirable dimensions of nature-human relations. For increased focus on stakeholder participation. Participatory
example, studies among those selected for the systematic processes are those where actors or stakeholders (i.e.,
literature review report on human-wildlife conflicts in individuals, groups or representatives of organisations) have
communities residing inside and around conservation areas, an active role in decisions that are relevant to them (Reed,
predominantly in sub-Saharan Africa (crop raiding primarily) 2008). Participatory approaches differ in terms of the level
but also in the United States of America and Latin America of participation they provide, the role of participants, and
(ranchers versus wolves and mountain lions). Several studies the extent to which participants can impact on decisions
highlight the real or perceived danger posed to human lives (Carnoye & Lopes, 2015). Methodologically, this has
by residing in close proximity to wildlife and the damage led to an expansion of the methods used in valuations,
to human property it can cause. There are also some including the incorporation of participation in traditional
150
ts
en
im
ed
s
nd
y i l sa
u les g t
in ali f so
ag tim qu n o es
op d er s rc
pr an at atio ent s ou s
d w l w i n v r e ce
an , flo sta tam e e t ic ien
e
c d s n it y a n m e e r re
an ee tio nt co co tre n xp tu
en of s ca qua and de d ex ge le na e
s n t i fi d n d
ic a i t h nc e
ge es n s ai sal ity r r
cid ate ate n an s a
n
a la on log y w y ns ge silie ce dg ds
l
s b ss a
ti o
n
m e r l e
d p ua at an hw hw tio arda
m
i c
i r
t i
a ho ies o n o m ig rit r n usti ing wle ns oo
i o a e s
i s m m ce o p a dis ir q lim ce es es ec az e p c tit r l d
m ton re he an pti d j lbe kn ati elih
o o o
e h s y
n s o
ga as pr of n r r
tio nd f a f c f o f f f f ro f h
t
ed oc in s en ha u d al y o n el d el liv
or al al ty ce bi d d p id in d a an ltur ilit nd e a w an al r d
ea a o o o o o , p o fe
d ls nal, an n g ell an lity cu aab ty a anc and ion oci y an
u al sic sic ersi n an t cr tion tion tion tion tion tion tion tion n a i g al a rtin w y a n i n t s t
y y e ta a l a a a a l a a y a i i n
n ic o t d i s r h a i
vid h h iv ain
t l l l
bi llin gu gu gu gu gu rm gu
a l g
er od ate ed
r ic
ar ys pp
i u n
ing ent irit t a sta ver ve alt uc od cu
r
di op op od Liv Id Sp Ar Su Di Go He Ed Go Se
In Bi Bi Bi M Ha Po Re Re Re Re Re Fo Re En Fo M M Le Ph Su
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Figure 3 15 Relative abundance of various valuation targets (systematic in-depth review

n=1163).
Classification following as in Europe and Central Asia Assessment (IPBES, 2018), colours according to targets of nature itself,
nature’s contributions to people (regulating, material, non-material) and good quality of life categories.
100%
17%
75%
11%
52%
50%
25%
20%
0%
at d
at d
at d
at d
lu se
lu se
lu se
lu ate
n
n
va -ba
va t-ba
va r-ba
io
io
io
io
va egr
e
t
en
ou
ur
In
m
at
vi
ha
te
N
Be
St
(Unclear/none) Specific stakeholder groups / communities Individuals

Society (full human population of the area) Households
Figure 3 16 Social scale at which valuations were performed.

Note that valuations often do not focus on a social scale, e.g., when focusing on a habitat or species.
151
appraisal techniques such as participatory mapping (Brown multi-criteria analysis (Garmendia & Gamboa, 2012; Stirling,
& Fagerholm, 2015; Brown & Kyttä, 2018), participatory 2006). Some methods are participatory by design, including
modelling (Fontaine et al., 2014), participatory scenario deliberative methods such as citizen juries (Brown et al.,
planning (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2015), participatory choice 1995), participatory (action) research (Sieber et al., 2014),
experiments (Maldonado et al., 2019), and participatory rural appraisal (Chambers, 1994) and focus groups. Other
United States of Germany Scotland Sweden Japan Colombia Greece

America (54) (35) (24) (16) (14) (14)
(120)
China Canada
70 (46) (31)
Norway Belgium
England (14) (11)
60
(67)
PUBLISHED PAPERS
50 Mexico
Australia (12)
France Brazil
(43) (28) (13)
40 Finland Switzerland
(11) (11)
30
Spain Japan
(65) (16) Portugal
20 (13)
Netherlands
(35) Denmark
Chile (10)
10
Italy (12)
India
(24)
(10)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Figure 3 17 The number of studies reporting on participatory valuation of nature in the
academic literature have increased substantially over the last 25 years, most
notably since 2014 (web of science search on participant* AND valuation AND
environment*).
Most such studies have been conducted in just a few countries. (Only countries with 10 or more studies are reported).
Box 3 1 The role of nature valuation in the management, resolution and transformation
of socio-environmental conflicts.
Socio-environmental conflicts are the result of disputes between valuation methods that are suited for use in conflict analysis,
social groups about decisions concerning the natural environment worldview assessment, framing analysis, consensus analysis,
or disagreements on the ownership, access, and distribution of and ethical analysis are powerful methods that can be used
costs and benefits derived from nature’s transformation (Herrera to understand the stakeholders (For descriptions of these
et al., 2017; United Nations et al., 2015). Conflict resolution refers methods, see 3.2.2.2). Participatory multi-criteria decision-
to the wide spectrum of strategies that are available to manage making analysis can be applied with conflictual parties to help
and resolve conflicts (Ramsbotham et al., 2011). make explicit the range of values involved, the dimensions of
well-being that are manifested and to begin exploring scenarios
Methods for articulating and assessing values can facilitate for the resolution of discrepancies (see 3.2.2.4). Deliberative
conflict resolution and transformation processes by approaches, with their strong emphasis on reaching consensus
characterising how the social groups involved perceive through discussion and reflection about individual and collective
the world and by providing information about values for preferences allow expressed values to be articulated and their
a constructive dialogue between the parties. It should be inter-relations explored. Conflict analysis can also draw from
noted, however, that the application of valuation methods nature-based valuation methods to quantify and characterise
is only one of several other methods and approaches that the components of nature that are contributing to the conflict
are essential in the complex and sometimes long process of and their distribution across parties, and to ultimately inform the
conflict resolution and transformation (Table 3.3). Among the process and outcomes of agreements.
152
Box 3 1
Table 3 3 Examples of methods that can be used to address conflict across conflict
resolution stages.
Negotiation/
Conflict Stakeholder Resolution/
Description Reference
analysis engagement Management/
Transformation
Understanding the worldviews of the disputing Hedlund de Witt et

parties helps to understand the different al., 2016; Hedlund-de
positions from which they interpret, enact and Witt, 2012; Hedlund-
Worldviews
co-create reality. The assessment of worldviews de Witt et al., 2014
assesssment
has been used to explain pro-environmental
behaviour, and there are few applications to the
analysis of socio-environmental conflicts.
Understanding frames is important for Brummans et al.,
mediators of conflicts, as this allows them to 2008; Davis &
intervene with a clearer insight on divergences Lewicki, 2003; Asah
Framing analysis and convergences, to find potential common et al., 2012
ground, and to propose alternative accounts of
conflicts in ways that disputants can subscribe
to.
It can potentially be applied to ‘characterize Carothers et al.,
variation in environmental beliefs across various 2014; Horowitz 2009;
stakeholder groups that will help in facilitating Miller et al, 2004;
an understanding of common and contrasting Stone-Jovicich et al.,
conceptions and values’ (Emery & Oughton, 2011; Swora 2003;
Consensus analysis 2011, p.19). The analysis mainly provides inputs Van Holt et al., 2010;
to identify opportunities for the construction of Hung & Yang 2006;
social agreements or public policies (Hung & Stone-Jovicich et al.,
Yang, 2006). 2011; Hung & Yang
2006.
Ethical participatory assessment expands upon Gritten et al., 2009;

pre-existing methods by opening them up to Nylund & Kröger
more effective bottom up deliberation through 2012
Ethical analysis reflecting upon ethical aspects of a public
decision.
Decision support tool that allows the disputing Davies 2013

parties to account for multiple dimensions
of well-being, create different scenarios and
Multicriteria decision analysis deliberate on the best options.
Disputant parties go through a process of Rauschmayer 2006

discussion and reflection to form preferences
beyond self-interest (Dietz et al., 2009),
consensus opinions (Murphy et al., 2017;
Deliberative valuation methods Palomo et al., 2011a), generate trust, and
increase social support for policy decisions
(Bunse et al., 2015; Parks & Gowdy, 2013).
methods do not require the subject to interact with other (Hisschemöller, 2018), natural resource management
study participants, but they do allow for individuals to (Johnson et al., 2016), community-based management
have more say in what and how they share information (Wiber et al., 2004), climate change (van Aalst et al.,
with valuators, such as with diary keeping and story-telling 2008), energy futures (Kowalski et al., 2009), technological
methods (Chambers, 2009). development (Cuppen, 2012, 2018), Nature-based solutions
(Palomo et al., 2021), environmental decision-making (UN,
Since the second half of the 20th century, participatory 1993), Global Water Partnership (2000) and others (Chilvers
practices have increasingly been used in urban planning & Kearnes, 2016; van Asselt Marjolein & Rijkens-Klomp,
153
100%
75%
50%
No participants or participatory approach
Unclear/other
Participants are engaged stakeholders in every step
25%
Participants are consulted for results and findings
Participants are data providers, with consent
Participants are data providers, no consent
0%
at d
at d
at d
at d
lu se
lu se
lu se
lu ate
n
n
va -ba
va t-ba
va r-ba
io
io
io
io
va egr
e
t
en
u
ur
In
io
em
at
av
N
h
at
Be
St
Figure 3 18 Levels and types of stakeholder engagement in valuation studies.
2002). Participatory approaches have shifted towards stakeholders on findings and 1% involve them in every step
allowing more diverse types of co-production and citizen-led of the valuation process. Across all methods families, a fair
processes informed by a diverse set of knowledge systems number of studies either failed to report on or were unclear
and disciplines (Fontaine et al., 2014), incorporating issues about their stakeholder engagement strategies if any.
of democratisation (Habermas, 1999), legitimacy and other
good governance criteria; (Barnaud & van Paassen, 2013),
inclusion (Elias et al., 2017), complexity (Reed, 2008) and 3.2.2 Assessment of valuation
diverse values (Lo & Spash, 2012). methods
Participatory processes, – especially those where actors Comprehensive reviews of valuation methods and
engage in dialogue – seek to fulfil different purposes, approaches that are applicable to biodiversity and nature’s
including increasing awareness and learning (before making contributions to people are scarce. Valuation method
decisions), addressing conflict and seeking consensus reviews focused on either one aspect of nature from multiple
(Brown & Raymond, 2014) (Box 3.1), generating situated methodological perspectives or multiple aspects from one
understandings (Ungar et al., 2020), or policy design (Kallis methodological perspective. To review the wide range
et al., 2006; Wesselink et al., 2011). Despite these claims, of existing methods covering the scope of chapter, we
the uptake of results of participatory and co-production organise the review and assessment of methods following
processes by decision-making remains limited (Turnhout et the methods family typology (see 3.1.2.2)19.
al., 2020; Wesselink et al., 2011).
3.2.2.1 Overview of nature-based
Among the 1163 valuation studies that were reviewed in
valuation methods
Chapter 3, nature-based methods were the least likely
to involve stakeholders followed by behaviour-based Nature-based valuation methods are methods that gather or
and integrated methods (Figure 3.18). On the contrary, analyse observations of (changes in) biophysical properties
about one third of statement-based valuation involved of nature with the aim to inform decision-making on
stakeholders to some extent. Across all method families, nature. These include observations on species, ecosystem
the most common form of stakeholder participation was as structures and processes, but also landscape, topography,
active and conscious data providers who had given their soil, water and air. Nature-based valuations play a central
consent. This form of stakeholder participation is considered role in making socio-economic analysis more robust (Chan
low-level participation since stakeholders’ agency to affect & Satterfield, 2020; Ferng, 2007; Wang et al., 2017).
the valuation process and their contribution to it is limited
(Fontaine et al., 2014). Integrated valuations were more likely
to provide agency to stakeholders by engaging them in all
19. Systematic review on method families (https://doi.org/10.5281/
steps of the valuation process. Only 2% of studies consult zenodo.4404436).
154
Box 3 2 Ecosystem services valuation.
Ecosystem service valuation, in the sense of this valuation psychology, economics, human geography, sociology, political
chapter, covers aspects of the different valuation method science, etc.). At the same time, the policy-oriented vision has
families discussed in this chapter, and thus represents an stimulated collaboration and integration of different approaches
essential cross-cutting theme. on concrete real-life valuations (Jacobs et al., 2016), which
has led to the increasing application of socio-cultural valuation
Valuation of ecosystem services aims to better understand the approaches as well as to the higher frequency of mixed-
importance of ecosystems to human wellbeing. The ecosystem method approaches that integrate biophysical, economic and
service concept dates from the late fifties and was re-introduced socio-cultural approaches (Martín-López et al., 2019) and an
in the 1977 paper of Walter Westman titled “How Much Are increasing attention for approaches to value nature used by
Nature’s Services Worth” (Baveye et al., 2013). During the indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC).
1980’s, the field of ‘ecological economics’ emerged (e.g., Ehrlich
& Ehrlich, 1981) and argued for valuation of ecosystems based These advances are reflected in the conceptual framework
on biophysical properties, inspired by classical economics of IPBES, which rebranded the concept to ‘Nature´s
theory of value based on costs of production. In the nineties, Contribution´s to People’ (Díaz et al., 2018; Pascual et al.,
the concept gained further traction and diverse methodologies 2017), to better emphasise diverse worldviews, relational values
to assess ecosystem services were developed, either based and fluid reporting categories (Kadykalo et al., 2019). Different
on biophysical properties of ecosystems or on people’s frameworks are needed for the global policy audience, to
preferences, perceptions and behaviours (e.g., Costanza et al., enable a stimulating and constructive dialogue among diverse
1997; Daily, 1997; Hanley et al., 1998). disciplines, from ecology to social sciences, on how nature
underpins human quality of life and how this can be valued in
The main critiques revolve around the adopted valuation decisions (Díaz et al., 2020).
methods and the theoretical inconsistencies with economic
value concepts (see e.g., Pearce, 1998). In short, economic However, several challenges for ecosystem services valuation
valuations are based on changes in economic welfare prevail. One challenge is the prevalence of valuations without
resulting from marginal changes to ecosystems. Such values appropriate biophysical grounding (Chan & Satterfield, 2020).
are context-dependent and will vary with any (non-marginal) Also, while integration of ecosystem service data within
change in the state of the ecosystem or socio-economic economic valuation and accounting systems represents
system (Turner et al., 2003). Therefore, estimating “total” clear opportunities (de Groot et al., 2022), the connection
economic value of the Earth’s ecosystems was argued to be of ecosystem services valuation with policy questions and
unsuitable for public policy advice about relatively modest decision-making institutions needs improving (Bouma & van
changes to economic and ecological systems (Bockstael et Beukering, 2015; Schaefer et al., 2015; Schröter et al., 2014).
al., 2000). The calculations did however succeed in raising Additional challenges are to move beyond national assessments
awareness of the economic significance of ecosystems and towards the impacts of international flows (Pascual et al.,
stimulated further research in environmental valuation. 2017; Schroeter et al., 2018), as well as inclusion of diverse
worldviews (Hobern et al., 2019; McElwee et al., 2020).
In terms of scientific publications, since the millennium
ecosystem assessment (2005) and the economics of Nevertheless, the field of “valuation of ecosystem services” is
ecosystem and biodiversity study (2010) the field has grown regarded as one of the major advances within sustainability
exponentially in the United States, the United Kingdom and science in the last three decades (Chan & Satterfield, 2020),
China, while papers from the global south remain virtually with a pedagogical aim to demonstrate human´s dependence
absent (McDonough et al., 2017). While environmental on ecosystems, and to identify solutions to the current
sciences and agricultural and biological sciences are the environmental crisis (Clark & Harley, 2020) for example by
ones that account for the largest number of publications regarding future decisions of land use change, to provide better
(McDonough et al., 2017), an increasingly large and diverse set outcomes for humans and nature (Bai et al., 2018; Bateman
of ecosystem service-valuation methodologies emerged from et al., 2013; Goldstein et al., 2012) and support the systemic
multiple scientific fields (including geography, environmental change that is needed (Dasgupta, 2021).
Nature-based valuations- as that which is today practised by asking questions about nature, natural phenomena,
in western science academies- have roots that go back to including technology and humanity. Ultimately, however, all
early records of the natural world20. Some of the early works cultures – large and small – have long histories of studying
can be traced to early philosophers and natural historians nature and its components and philosophising about
(40 AD to 1800s) who are recognized for having had a human-nature relations. We acknowledge the bias towards
key role in the development of western scientific inquiry western science contributions to nature-based valuation
presented in the next paragraphs and subsequent sections.
20. Historical development of nature-based valuation methods (https://doi.
org/10.5281/zenodo.4422075).
155
Natural history, as a field of study in Europe, inspired this extractive mode of working with local communities and
centuries of scholars to document the natural world by knowledge holders persists in modern day valuations of
accumulating large collections of exotic specimens and nature (see 3.2.4).
developing systems to categorise them into taxonomic
groups (Wulf, 2015). The observations, theories and While nature-based valuation methods have been applied
writing of Alexander von Humboldt of his travels to South mostly to measure and assess values of nature, such as
America in the early to mid-19th Century laid the foundation (fertile) soil, (productive) forest, (pure) water, (rare) minerals,
for subsequent explorations by renown European natural as well as ecosystems, biomes, species, and ecosystem
historians including English naturalists Henry Walter Bates, functions and processes, they have a long history in
Charles Darwin, and Alfred Russel Wallace (Helferich, 2011; supporting decision-making on management of natural
Morrison, 2016). resources. More recently, their application on concepts such
as nature’s contribution to people and ecosystem services is
Their work gave birth to biology as a theory-informed helping to make the link between nature and people’s quality
science and provided the early foundations for western of life more visible and easier to understand (Hammer et
conservation science (Swart et al., 2001). The field al., 2018). The importance of nature to deliver contributions
introduced many of the concepts used in nature valuation to humans is well-recognized (IPBES, 2019a). Specifically,
today that make explicit the importance of nature in ecosystem service mapping is an assessment method that
decision-making (Williams, 2014) such as the concept has received a lot of attention due to its clear links with
of “keystone species”, defined as species with a pivotal spatial planning (Albert et al., 2016) (Box 3.2).
role in structuring ecosystem processes (Paine, 1969);
“biodiversity hotspots” as areas for priority conservation Due to the diversity of values of nature, a broad set of tools
planning and “threatened species” as species deserving and methods have been developed to value biophysical
special conservation attention (Swart et al., 2001). The role phenomena (Table 3.4). Some of them can be used for
and contribution of IPLC to these efforts is increasingly several purposes and in different ways, which makes
being acknowledged and critiqued, however, given that discrete categorization difficult. Indeed, many projects
Table 3 4 Examples of tools and methods in nature-based valuation. (See more complete
list in Annex 3.4).
Approach How data are collected or generated Examples of methods
Direct • Field observations and measurements (in situ/ex situ) • Species’ lists & inventory
measurements • Inventory /statistics • Vegetation surveys
• Biophysical data collection
• Biodiversity monitoring
Stakeholder • Data is collected from resource users or those are • Resource use surveys
consultations knowledgeable about the nature phenomenon • Interviews
• Delphi Methods
• Expert consultation
Spatial Analysis • Direct ground-based mapping • Species distribution & biodiversity hotspot mapping
and Mapping • From satellites, aircraft, ships, drones, and other • Gap analysis
remote-sensing and on-site measurements. • Participatory mapping of different attributes of nature
• Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and ecosystems
• Enhanced vegetation index (EVI) • Habitat suitability analysis
• Information provided by consultations with resource • Ecological importance
users, local stakeholders and experts • Forest cover estimation and forest structure analysis
• Vulnerability, resilience and adaptation assessment
• Least cost corridor analysis
• Unmanned aerial vehicles for monitoring of biota
Modelling • Primary or secondary sources of data • State and transition models

• Often uses combinations of data sources collected • Phylogenetic analysis
using the methodologies mentioned above • Modelling and simulation of agricultural systems or
productivity
• Hydrological/climate modelling
156
and experts present different categories of methods methods will create confusion over which method is the
depending on the data needed, the process used or even most accurate (Andrew et al., 2015), hinder comparability
the types of results or final use. Table 3.4 presents the main (Bagstad et al., 2013), and hamper evidence-based
characteristics of the major nature-based methods groups decision-making. Palomo et al. (2018) confirm that one of
identified from the literature review21. As mentioned above, the main bottlenecks related to the mapping of ecosystem
the boundaries among these groups are not rigid and many services is the selection of methods. Tiered mapping
overlaps occur. Among the decision-making processes approaches, decision trees (e.g., ValuES), and guidelines
these methods inform are e.g., conservation prioritisation, for standardised mapping and measurements of ecosystem
planning & management, resource extraction planning (e.g., services are potential solutions for map-makers, while
through stock assessments), agricultural development platforms for methods documentation and comparison
(genetic material, pollination services, soil fertility), could be developed to help end-users (Palomo et al., 2018).
conservation programme development, legal and voluntary
compliance (e.g., through water and air quality monitoring), Scaling issues – Scale is defined as the physical dimensions,
climate change mitigation & adaptation, infrastructure in either space or time, to which any nature-based valuation
development (e.g., impact assessments). or assessment of the biophysical world applies. Scale is
often loosely defined to include issues of extent, duration,
resolution, grain and hierarchical level. Scale is a key issue
Challenges and potentials in nature-based valuation
in any nature-based valuation, assessment or measurement
The choice of what to measure biophysically is informed by of nature, nature’s contributions to people or ecosystem
cultural principles, contexts and worldviews (see Chapter services. Issues of scale are associated with the fact that
2). It is simultaneously a proxy of ecological importance that nature’s contributions to people or ecosystem services are
can be further assessed for its socio-cultural or economic supplied, used, valued and managed at different spatial
importance or directly inform decisions. For instance, the and temporal scales. For example, the spatial or temporal
decision to measure the abundance of a red listed species scale at which the processes of nature operate or function
in a certain area can lead to legal protection of the area. (to produce nature’s contributions to people or ecosystem
Therefore, the choice of what is (not) measured or valued services) generally do not overlap with the scale at which
has “normative, value-laden dimensions’’, even when the those processes are managed or valued by humans
valuation itself is an objective measurement (Bresnihan, (Willemen, 2020). Such an example of spatio-temporal
2017) (see Chapter 2). A review by Crossman et al. (2013) mismatch has been illustrated in relation to the supply of
on ecosystem services showed that, out of 113 mapping fresh grass for essential oil production in South-Africa which
studies, 32% mapped only one ecosystem service, even varies in space and time, while its management occurs
though other services existed. Emphasising one aspect uniformly throughout the studied area (del Río-Mena et al.,
without considering the whole system can have, and has 2020). In general, scale effects are still poorly considered
had, damaging consequences (Bresnihan, 2017; Everard & (Lavorel et al., 2017). The scale of any study should be
McInnes, 2013; MEA, 2005). A growing number of studies determined by the end user and correspond to the scale of
explicitly consider multiple aspects of nature, ecosystem the decision to be made (Lavorel et al., 2017).
services belonging to different categories, bundles of
ecosystem services or synergies and trade-offs, which is Some models and tools are particularly well-suited to
essential to guide decision-making to avoid biases towards specific local contexts and results of their applications
specific ecosystem services, and to include potential in different contexts are not made to be compared. The
linkages and feedbacks between them (Crouzat et al., 2016; disadvantage is that they might not fit within common
Spake et al., 2017). Despite the growing body of literature, decision frameworks (Bagstad et al., 2013). As Bagstad
synergies and trade-offs remain poorly understood, however et al., (2011) mention, this trade-off is partly related to
(Filyushkina et al., 2016; Haase et al., 2014; Seifert-Dähnn scale: some generalised models may be highly effective at
et al., 2015). a national level but ineffective at the local level. Malinga et
al., (2015) found that a majority of studies are performed at
Different methods used to measure an aspect of nature the municipal and provincial levels (i.e., intermediary scale),
often yield different results and have different implications and two-third of studies used a fine spatial resolution of
for policy. There is a debate as to whether a diversity of one hectare or less. An alternative strategy might be to
approaches will support advancement (Seppelt et al., cross-compare policy findings of place-based studies rather
2012), and meet the diverse demands reflected by the than applying fully harmonised generalised concepts and
heterogeneity of socio-ecological systems and contexts, or methods and foregoing the local context-specific relevant
whether the discrepancies in the spatial patterns of mapped features (Balvanera et al., 2020).
and modelled ecosystem services yielded by the various
However, scaling will remain a partly unresolvable challenge.
zenodo.4404436). See nature-based valuation. Often, a combination of spatial data available at different
157
spatial resolutions (e.g., from different satellite sensors), nature’s contributions to people varies across space and
in different geographic information systems formats (e.g., time (Haase et al., 2012).
raster vs vector), or covering different spatial extents are
used for nature-based valuation (e.g., land use data, habitat
Costs of conducting nature-based valuation
suitability maps, or species observation data). Depending
on the spatial resolution, data from different sensors for Academic literature rarely provides information about the
example will likely give different ecosystem services or cost of methods either in terms of finance, time or human
nature’s contributions to people estimates for a given area resources and the implications of different approaches (e.g.,
(de Araujo Barbosa et al., 2015). participatory vs non-participatory monitoring) on costs of
undertaking a study. For some methods (e.g., biodiversity
Data quality – Biophysical assessments used in valuation, monitoring) costs can be inferred from the type of expertise
especially ecosystem service-mapping studies, often needed (e.g., low or high technical skills), the costs of the
derive their results from unvalidated secondary data of tools used and the time required to undertake the study.
variable quality, e.g., land cover used as proxy instead However, given that tools are rarely used exclusively for
of biophysical observations or measurements (Martínez- one study and that human resources can be spread
Harms & Balvanera, 2012; Seppelt et al., 2011). The across multiple tasks that are not reported in studies, cost
values (or indicators) developed in such studies are largely estimates based on valuation reports can easily be over
hypotheses of relationships between the biophysical data or under-estimated.
at hand and the ecosystem services of interest (Andrew et
al., 2015) which have rarely been tested (Martínez-Harms & Additional factors that can affect the costs of undertaking
Balvanera, 2012). There is a clear need for more validated nature valuation: i) difficulty in establishing methodological
maps and models (Schägner et al., 2013). In addition, few comparisons because methods are often developed to
studies explicitly address and communicate uncertainty address specific problems/issues (Hernández-Morcillo et al.,
(Hamel & Bryant, 2017; Lavorel et al., 2017), as well as 2013; Winthrop, 2014); ii) costs derived from quality control
detailed information on specific methods used to assess and repeatability of methods (Winthrop, 2014); iii) costs
ecosystem services (Bagstad, et al., 2013b; Seppelt et associated to time and financial needs in data collection
al., 2011). at the spatial and temporal scale required (Ambrose-Oji
& Pagella, 2012; Kumar et al., 2021), and iv) costs and
Land cover data is the most common input for ecosystem resources needed to develop and maintain the nature
service mapping and modelling (Andrew et al., 2015). A valuation tools and training staff (Bagstad et al., 2013).
given indicator is often attributed to each land cover /
ecosystem service combination, irrespective of specific 3.2.2.2 Overview of statement-based
location characteristics, using, e.g., expert knowledge. While
valuation methods
this has the advantage of being a relatively fast assessment,
it may result in a poor fit of ecosystem service estimates Statement-based valuation methods directly ask people
(Burkhard & Maes, 2017; Martínez-Harms & Balvanera, to express their values either verbally, in writing or through
2012). The relationship between land cover and ecosystem other actions solicited by the valuation process e.g., ranking
service supply still has to be tested in most regions of the components of nature or indicating preferences (Carson,
world (Martínez-Harms & Balvanera, 2012). 2018; Tinch et al., 2019). As such, the methods in this
family generate information directly from participants of
Ecological production functions, on the other hand, the diverse ways in which they perceive and value nature.
are quantitative models of ecosystem services that use The responses obtained can be used to describe values
measured ecosystem properties. These models make held and to quantify and qualify people’s interactions with
greater attempts to mechanistically estimate the supply nature, nature’s contributions to people and nature-derived
and flows of ecosystem services (Andrew et al., 2015) but wellbeing (Cheng et al., 2019; Díaz et al., 2015; Johnston
demand more resources. Also, despite their prominence et al., 2017). Valuation participants can state their values as
in ecological studies of ecosystem services, providers of economic or social-political agents or both (Blamey et al.,
ecosystem services (Kremen, 2005) are rarely used for the 1995; Nyborg, 2000).
mapping of ecosystem services, although they could be
useful indicators of ecosystem services supply (Andrew et The earliest form of statement-based valuation was
al., 2015). Statistical models based on field data should contingent valuation (Davis, 1963), although the use of
also be used more frequently (Martínez-Harms & Balvanera, values elicited from statements in public policy debates
2012). In general, how specific indicators are linked to remained scant for decades (Kling et al., 2012). After the
ecosystem services and nature’s contributions to people Exxon Valdez incident in 1989, however, where court
remains an important issue, and an indicator’s capacity cases determined the compensation for oil spill damages
to describe a specific aspect of ecosystem services and of remote wilderness areas in Alaska (for details see Exxon
158
Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 2008) interest in estimating questionnaires are the most widely used approach for
the value of public goods for similar decision-making generating information about values of people for nature’s
purposes was spurred. For example, a panel of experts contributions to people/ecosystem services (see 3.3.3).
was brought together to assess if results from a contingent Brook & McLachlan (2008) also find that more than 60%
valuation could be used as evidence to determine of ecological and conservation research and monitoring
damages to nature (see National Oceanic and Atmospheric studies conducted in IPLC contexts, used interviews to
Administration (NOAA) documentation (e.g., Arrow et al., document ILK (Brook & McLachlan, 2008).
1993)). Over the following decades the methods have been
refined and now also include methods using other value Methods using surveys include a range of specific
indicators (e.g., Hegetschweiler et al., 2017; Nesbitt et al., valuation procedures such as contingent valuation (De
2017) and also methods based on group elicitation. This Boer & Baquete, 1998), (discrete) choice experiments,
family of methods includes the so-called stated preference and contingent behaviour (Christie, 2007). In the context
methods developed in economics (I. Bateman et al., 2002), of monetary valuation, these specific methods are known
some preference-based methods and many “socio-cultural” as “stated preferences” methods (Bateman et al., 2002;
valuation techniques that are often used to evaluate Johnston et al., 2017). These methods circumvent the
non-material nature’s contributions to people (Hernández- absence of markets for certain environmental goods and
Morcillo et al., 2013; Scholte et al., 2015). services. They present respondents with hypothetical
markets or hypothetical policy options where they have
Statement-based valuation can range from highly structured the opportunity to choose or to buy the goods in question
to unstructured approaches. Structured methods collect and state their preferences (Bateman et al., 2002). Within
a fixed set of value information descriptors (e.g., by monetary valuation, stated preference methods have been
using structured questionnaires). In unstructured and/or applied regularly and to many different habitats to value a
exploratory methods value indicators of interest are not a diverse set of ecosystem services/nature’s contributions to
priori defined (e.g., ethnographic and narrative interviews). people (Hanley & Czajkowski, 2019; Schmidt et al., 2016).
These methods generate quantitative and qualitative Especially in contexts where (cash) income is limited, but
data, allowing for the application of analytical as well as time potentially less so, studies have used time – rather than
interpretative methods (Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013). money – as a numeraire, asking people for their willingness
Moreover, the valuation process can be designed primarily to spend time to contribute to environmental improvements
by those whose values are assessed, be co-created, or fully or protection (O’Garra, 2009).
controlled by the valuator.
While monetary valuation methods assess preferences
For the purpose of this overview, the methods and and assume these relate to utility, other methods use
approaches in this group are subdivided into two types: different well-being indicators. A strand of literature has
methods that elicit values from individuals and those that used questionnaires to assess to what extent differences
elicit values from groups of people (Wolff et al., 2015). in indicators such as life satisfaction and happiness can
This grouping focuses on the elicitation process (i.e., how be explained by variation in natural landscapes, features or
information is generated) which is also the basis for identifying phenomena (Kweon et al., 2010; Olsen et al., 2019). These
the limitations of statement-based methods (see 3.3.2.2)22. include both the positive effects attributed, e.g., to green
space (Kweon et al., 2010), as well as the negative impacts
of disasters such as floods and storms (von Möllendorff &
Individual-based approaches
Hirschfeld, 2016).
In individual-based methods, a researcher, possibly in
collaboration with the respondent, collects statements Non-economic, quantitative preference assessments (not
on values, and in qualitative or quantitative format, from directly linked to well-being indicators) such as ratings
individuals, through questionnaires, interviews or other and rankings based on visual representation of nature,
data collection methods and instruments. Individual-based ask participants to indicate preferences from a series of
methods can be useful for multiple purposes, for example: photographs manipulated to contain marginal changes in
when individual rather than group-formed values are of (usually) landscape attributes. Such assessments have been
interest, when group-sessions would restrict individuals used at least since the 1960s (e.g., Shafer, 1969; Shafer
(for reasons of privacy, sensitivity or otherwise) from & Brush, 1977) and continue to be an effective statement-
expressing their views, where policies are evaluated based based method for conducting valuation (e.g., Häfner et
on outcomes at individual or household level, or where al., 2018).
individuals hold specific knowledge, views or positions
requiring in-depth individual engagement. Interviews and The Q-method (Q-sorting) (Newman & Ramlo, 2010) is
another methodology that has been used to investigate
zenodo.4404436). See statement-based valuation. individuals’ perspectives on human-nature relationships.
159
Rather than being randomly sampled from a target of the decision problem is high (further elaborated below).
population, in Q-method respondents are selected to A group-based interaction can sometimes be classified
represent different perspectives, and their ranking of a series as a deliberative process (Habermas, 1999; Howarth &
of statements is used to determine how different stakeholder Wilson, 2006a). However, a deliberative process will require
groups assess importance (e.g., Zabala et al., 2018). more time and often repeated interaction, and sets stricter
Q-methodology has been used to assess recreational, conditions on the quality of communication, than other
spiritual and aesthetic values, and sense of place, with very methods using group discussion/elicitation (Schaafsma et
few examples of its use in assessing educational values, al., 2018) (see 3.2.2.4).
knowledge systems, social relations or inspiration with this
methodology exist (Cheng et al., 2019). Group dynamics can be designed to have minimum
interaction and/or deliberation between participants which
Interviews can range from highly structured formal range from strongly moderated discussions to free-flowing
discussions to unstructured interactions akin to informal conversations whereby topics are determined by the
conversations. The most common setting consists of a one- participants. Group discussions are usually organised
to-one discussion between researchers and respondents. around one or more group activities. Focus group
This is considered suitable for collecting qualitative data discussions is a widely used technique which sociologists
through open-ended questions, exploring the respondent’s and psychologists have applied since the 1940s (e.g.,
life views and their ways of constructing their lives and social Merton et al., 1956; Merton & Kendall, 1946). Nominal group
worlds, in the present, past and future (Warren, 2004). For technique is a structured method for group brainstorming
example, structured interviews have been used to assess that encourages contributions from all participants and
preferences of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes facilitates quick agreement on the relative importance of
(Smith & Sullivan, 2014) and mountainous regions (Schmidt issues, problems, or solutions. Methods using discussion-
et al., 2016). Expert interviews and other expert-based based approaches may rely on one or more facilitators
approaches (e.g., using Delphi techniques) also generate who not only moderate the discussion, but whose role is
information on values obtained through statements and to stimulate interaction and exchange between participants
are apt for data-poor environments (Scholte et al., 2015). (Epstein & Leshed, 2016). The methods can elicit individual
They can capture all specific value types (i.e., instrumental, and/or group-level perceptions and values.
relational, intrinsic), and can be used to assess biophysical
values (Edwards et al., 2012; Nahuelhual et al., 2014). Group-based approaches can address some of the
shortcomings of individual-based methods. Due to
Narrative research uses stories to determine narrators’ the emphasis on participants’ worldviews, narratives,
values, such as their sense of place (Cheng et al., 2019). discourses, expressed values and perceptions, it is often
These narratives can be based on multiple data collection claimed that discussion-based approaches allow for
methods including interviews (Klain et al., 2014) and short broader legitimacy than non-participatory methods that
stories (Bieling, 2014). Interviews involve a conversation do not engage with stakeholders (Kenter et al., 2016b). In
between participants/narrators and listeners/researchers this vein, it is argued that concepts of justice and equity
who – through this conversation – generate meaning of (distributional, procedural and recognitional) are particularly
the events or experiences of the narrator (Mishler, 1986). well adapted to this approach (Beauvais & Baechtiger, 2016;
Proponents of narrative approaches argue that they allow Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017). However, inclusion of stakeholders
for linking across multiple disciplines can provide creative and the representation of different groups (e.g., IPLC) can
solutions to persistent problems (Squire et al., 2014) be a challenge in terms of time and resources needed (Flynn
and can contribute to shifting environmental attitudes et al., 2018). Trade-offs must usually be accommodated,
(Knackmuhs et al., 2019). and new risks can be introduced when amplifying inclusivity,
e.g., concerns regarding the actual representativeness of
participants (Boeraeve et al., 2018) or power dynamics
Group-based approaches
between participants (Berbés-Blázquez, 2012) (Table 3.5).
Group-based approaches elicit values through a process
that requires the presence of two or more participants with
Types of values elicited by statement-
a facilitator. The main feature of group-based methods is
based methods
that the responses, which could be individual statements or
group statements or a mix of those, are all provided through Methods in this family can capture a wide range of specific
a process where interaction between the participants is values and are particularly useful for eliciting values related
an important part of the process. The group interaction to non-market benefits and non-use aspects of nature. In
can have many benefits, particularly in situations where value-stating methods, actual behaviour or presence is not
participants are asked to provide value judgements on necessary: people are (assumed to be) able to state their
issues that are unfamiliar or when the level of complexity values for hypothetical/future/past situations (Cheng et al.,
160
2019; Hanley et al., 1998). Techniques in this family are resources and related biodiversity (see 3.3.2.2). This method
particularly well-suited for assessing the values of current family has been proposed for assessing social, cultural, and
and potential use and demand of nature’s contributions other-regarding (altruistic) values (Cooper & Kagel, 2016),
to people and nature’s contributions to good quality of life values expressed within instrumental and relational, and
(Christie et al., 2012), and broad as well as specific values. sometimes intrinsic justifications (see 3.3.2.2) (see Box 3.3).
These aspects provide a reason for the diverse use of
this family of methods. Many monetary valuation methods
Strengths and potentials of statement-
collect individual utility-based values (such as choice
based valuation
experiments), based on neoclassical utility maximisation
assumptions (Tinch et al., 2019). Other valuation methods, The methods have potential to inform policies in a range of
both economic and non-economic, have less or no rigid ways; development of policy instruments for conservation,
assumptions regarding preferences and use different ethical such as the design of payments for ecosystem services
(non-utilitarian) stances (Hirons et al., 2016). schemes (Chan et al., 2017; Engel et al., 2008; Wunder,
2005) including compensation levels to ensure sufficient
Although statement-based methods have mostly focused participation (e.g., Zandersen et al., 2016). A common
on eliciting instrumental values (Schmidt et al., 2016), several decision-making context for which the valuation results are
of the methods included (such as contingent valuation and used are project appraisals through cost benefit analysis
choice experiments) have been used to assess the intrinsic (Atkinson et al., 2018).
or existence value of nature (Christie et al., 2012). This group
of methods can also capture direct use values, option values, Choice experiments or contingent valuation may be
bequest values and existence (non-use) values (Turner et al., suitable when monetary estimates based on representative
2003). It can provide useful information about the economic samples are required in order to design policy instruments
significance of the lost passive-use values individuals may for protected areas (e.g., Uyarra et al., 2010), or to gain
suffer from anthropogenic activities damaging natural understanding of the general public’s support for or
Box 3 3 Methods for eliciting and articulating broad values and worldviews.
Broad values and worldviews form key aspects of personality people understand not only each other’s premises but also
(Nilsson, 2014), social attitudes (van Hiel et al., 2007), and their own ethical standpoint in a policy setting. According to
group identity (Irzik & Nola, 2009; Mendoza-Denton & Hansen, Feldman (1987), the main contribution of this approach is to
2007) (also see Chapter 2) and can therefore be included in the devote explicit attention to ethical issues, which are usually
assessment of specific values both using individual based and neglected in public decision-making whereas they are often
group-based methods. (e.g., Boyce et al., 2021). implicit to it. In understanding the different stances that
stakeholders take and mapping of ethical issues, different tools
Consensus Analysis consists of analytical techniques and are used, such as principle based ethics, the ethical matrix, the
models ‘that can be used to estimate cultural beliefs and ethical grid and the ethical participatory assessment (Dubois &
the degree to which individuals know or report those beliefs’ Fraser, 2013; Forsberg et al., 2017); which mainly differ in terms
(Weller, 2007, p. 339). These methods assume ‘culture can of their format, type or extent of deliberation. Principle based
be defined at least in part as a shared pool of knowledge that ethics looks at the general norms. The ethical matrix examines
is socially distributed according to societal divisions such as general principles such as well-being or fairness.
class, gender, and the division of labour’ (Swora, 2003, p. 341).
The analysis consists of establishing the degree of consensus Framing analysis consists of assessing the ways people define
or dissent among groups that share cultural knowledge around what is central, peripheral, meaningful and less meaningful
a specific issue, using statistical analysis and qualitative (Davis & Lewicki, 2003). Framing is the process of creating
information (Horowitz, 2009; Miller et al., 2004). These frames and reframing is the change in frames, which might
methods are used in studies about intra-cultural variation; happen as a result of deliberate interventions in conflict
shared knowledge in traditional societies; fisheries; water and mediation (Gray, 2003) or without interventions (Dewulf et
environmental management; climate change perception; local al., 2004; Emery et al., 2013). Diverse typologies are used
hunting conditions and folk medicine (Carothers et al., 2014; to classify frames (Dewulf et al., 2010; Kaufman et al., 2003;
Horowitz, 2009; Hung et al., 2006; Miller et al., 2004; Stone- Shmueli et al., 2006; Shmueli, 2008). Generally, methods
Jovicich et al., 2011; Swora, 2003; van Holt et al., 2010). See combine qualitative primary information and qualitative and
Chapter 2 for discussion of shared values (see 2.4; Box 2.9). quantitative analyses of it (Brummans et al., 2008; Dewulf et al.,
2004; Lewicki et al., 2003).
Ethical analysis supports systematic reflection upon ethical
aspects of a critical public decision. The purpose is to help
161
opposition to potential policy programmes (Rolfe & Windle, are small and low-cost technologies can be used (Scholte
2013), to evaluate different preferences among stakeholder et al., 2015)). However, the required skills and budgets differ
groups (Monzón-Acuña, 2004), and whether improvements considerably across methods.
might be financed (Martin-Ortega, 2012; Meginnis et al.,
2020). Due to their ability to capture non-use values, these
Limitations and disadvantages of statement-based
approaches can be used to identify the premium that the
valuation
public is willing to pay to avoid biodiversity losses (Nobel et
al., 2020). Most of the statement-based valuation methods are used
for ex-ante policy appraisal. Therefore, it is assumed that the
It is claimed that statement-based valuation has advantages stated values of respondent/participant within the setting of
over other families in terms of providing procedural and the method are transferable to future real-life settings. This
recognition justice of valuations. For example, both requires that the participants have a good understanding
individual and group-based methods can be designed to of the future setting and are willing to convey their real
have [statistically or politically] representative samples or values. Moreover, if participants know or believe that their
target specific groups (e.g., marginalised voices) (Aldred et responses will have a material effect on policy design, and
al., 2017). By including the values of diverse stakeholders the survey is incentive compatible, then strategic bias (e.g.,
in the valuation process these methods can increase the stating a high value for important issues if there is no actual
legitimacy of the policy decisions taken based on those payment expected) may be avoided. For ex-post evaluation,
values (Kenter et al., 2016a; Pieraccini, 2015). the value-stating methods assume that participants
accurately recall and truthfully report on the values that
Statement-based valuation methods can also be used informed their decisions or behaviour at the time of the
to understand values of less familiar habitats (such as environmental (management) change for which values are
deep oceans), where observation of direct use or societal elicited. Despite the increase in use in academia of valuation
engagement with the habitat is challenging or does not based on people’s statements, the suitability of the methods
occur (see 3.3.2.2). Group-based methods (i.e., stakeholder for public policy remains disputed (e.g., Carson, 2012;
workshops, focus groups, and others) allow for deliberation Hausman, 2012; Kling et al., 2012) (see 3.3.2.2).
and social learning processes before values are stated, so
that participants can familiarise themselves with different Social and cultural contexts play a fundamental role in
perspectives as well as the targeted nature’s contributions determining what is valued, how it is valued and why
to people for valuation. (Arnberger & Eder, 2011a, 2011b; Kaplan & Kaplan,
1989; Ode et al., 2009; Swanwick, 2009). Therefore, the
Statement-based valuation methods provide an opportunity outcomes of valuations conducted with statement-based
to address, discuss and evaluate the risks and uncertainty methods are highly dependent on who is included in the
of environmental change and associated values. Risk valuation exercise and whether the method matches the
and uncertainty can stem from gaps in knowledge about context to which it is applied (Berkes, 2004; Kelemen &
ecosystem dynamics (including regime shifts and tipping Gómez-Baggethun, 2008).
points/thresholds; Lenton et al., 2019), social dynamics
and human preferences (Godfray et al., 2018) and technical Power issues that influence or determine which methods
issues (Morton, 2015) in the valuation process. Methods are used to elicit and express values and how the valuation
have very different approaches to assessing how these process is designed are highly relevant to this method family.
risks and uncertainty affect value generating and stating Some of the methods are often fully designed and executed
processes, making the selection of the method a key by the researcher and lack participation in all valuation
consideration (Botelho et al., 2017). In general, research steps, whereas others can be more easily co-designed and
has found that higher outcome uncertainty reduces utility led by participants. A key characteristic of this method family
(Lundhede et al., 2015). is that those conducting the valuation collect this value
information using purposefully designed data collection
Research has also shown that statement-based valuation methods. In this sense, the role of the researcher (and
methods can elicit values related to quality of life, cultural moderator) requires reflexivity and positionality, where the
identity, sense of place or social relations in nature and non- research reflects on their role in the valuation process and
use values (Benjamin et al., 2014; Hausmann et al., 2016; their influence on the outcomes (Soedirgo & Glas, 2020).
Houkamau & Sibley, 2019; Poe et al., 2016; Tinch et al.,
2019). Also, the measurement of good quality of life often With group-based methods, power-relation effects within
requires value stating methods (Benjamin et al., 2014). Other the group and other dynamics might affect the assessment
advantages of value stating methods include that they can outcomes (Schaafsma et al., 2018). For example, in
be applied where there is limited or no existing data, and deliberative methods, dominance of individual participants
some of these methods are low in costs (e.g., sample sizes can lead to exclusion of other participants and domination
162
Table 3 5 Overview of value stating methods.

See also a more elaborate version including potential strengths and limitations in Annex 3.5.
General Approach
How data are collected Examples of methods
(source of data)
Individual based Questionnaires and interviews administered to • Contingent valuation

individuals and/or groups directly (face-to-face), • Choice experiments
Survey-based electronically, by mail or by phone • Ethnographic interviews/ methods
• Narrative research
• Happiness survey
• Life satisfaction approach
• Individual-based participatory assessment process
• Individual-based Q-methodology
• Expert elicitation
• Mental mapping
Group-based Facilitator-moderated group interaction • Public good games

• Deliberative valuation (including monetary)
Discussions-based
• Nominal group technique (NGT);
• Focus groups
• Scenario assessments/ visioning exercises
• Photo-voice
• Delphi panels
of one perspective in the results (Dietz et al., 2009). Carefully Furthermore, large-sample quantitative studies tend to
designed processes are therefore essential to reduce the elicit a small range of quantifiable responses. This may
risk of not representing less vocal participants (Barnaud & limit the adequate elicitation of different value types (e.g.
Van Paassen, 2013; Felt et al., 2016; Turnhout et al., 2020). related to spirituality or cultural heritage) and diverse values,
especially those that are not (well) quantifiable (Scholte et
Evidence from reviews about the reliability and validity of al., 2015). Statement-based valuations sometimes assume
these methods is more abundant for some methods than that people have sufficient information about the ecosystem
for others. For example, regarding reliability and validity before stating their values; where this is not the case,
multiple reviews are available of monetary stated preference some scholars argue that it is risky to base environmental
methods (with mixed results; Haab et al., 2013; Hausman, management on such values (Ruiz-Frau et al., 2018).
2012), willingness to pay (Oerlemans et al., 2016),
willingness to accept (Whittington et al., 2017), choice 3.2.2.3 Overview of behaviour-based
experiments (Rakotonarivo et al., 2016), contingent valuation
valuation methods
(Venkatachalam, 2004), and studies regarding the reliability
in risk assessment (Hertwig et al., 2019; Pasman & Rogers, Behaviour-based valuation methods quantify or qualify
2018, 2020; Rogers et al., 2019). However, the literature the value of nature’s contributions to people based on
search provided limited evidence for other methods, observations of people’s behaviour using both economic
especially those whose application in the context of and non-economic indicators. The origin of valuation
valuation of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people of nature in economics rests on a behaviour-based
is more recent. For example, one problem with ranking methodology. The idea that it is possible to identify the
according to the importance of nature’s contributions to worth of recreational benefits of national parks based on the
people (or ecosystem services) is that participants may cost incurred by visitors to travel to the places they visited
rate all types as very important. Such rankings do not (attributed to Hotelling (1947), see Pearce, 2002 for an
help to inform trade-off decisions where not all nature’s overview of the early developments). Hotelling’s suggestions
contributions to people can be provided at the same time outlined what is called today the travel cost method. At the
and in all policy options (Horne et al., 2005). time, no methods existed to include environmental benefits
or costs in evaluations of public policies and the effects were
The reliability and validity of more structured methods in this usually ignored and described as intangibles (Pearce, 2002).
family rely heavily on well-created study designs, including
the accuracy of the description of the environmental/ More than a decade passed before this insight was further
biodiversity issue at stake. Errors in the description explored in studies by Trice & Wood (1958) and Clawson
discovered after the fact can mostly not be changed. (1959). Since then, the idea that the value of environmental
163
benefits can be derived from observing how people avoided damage cost refers to the costs of preventing or
purchase linked marketed goods and services is known avoiding damages in the absence of nature’s benefit or
and referred to as “revealed preference methods”. The service (e.g., sediment retention service of forested land as
requirement for use of these methods is that the expenditure measured in terms of cost of building retaining walls to hold
in the conventional market is a prerequisite for enjoying the sediments); defensive expenditure refers to the costs of
the environmental benefits or avoiding being exposed to taking actions to prevent adverse impacts from declining or
environmental costs. deteriorating nature’s contribution (e.g., economic benefits
of biodiversity gains from management of invasive species);
and opportunity cost is the cost of forgone alternative (e.g.,
Classifying behaviour-based valuation methods
deforesting land for building structures has the opportunity
The economic behaviour-based methods are commonly cost of forgoing nature’s benefits or service from the
classified into direct methods that estimate values based forested land).
on the observed behaviour of consumers and producers in
markets (market price method); and indirect methods that Cost-based methods (replacement cost, avoided damage
estimate values based on a relationship between nature cost and opportunity cost) have been commonly used to
and individuals’ behaviour observed through transactions value regulating ecosystem services (Balasubramanian,
in a linked market or reflected in some measures of costs 2019) and wetland values (Browne et al., 2018), and
(Champ et al., 2003; Farber et al., 2006; Freeman III et ecosystem service provided by aquaculture (Custódio et
al., 2014; Hanley & Barbier, 2009a; MEA, 2005; US EPA, al., 2020) but minimally used to value forest ecosystem
2009). services (Acharya et al., 2019). Among the methods used
to value wetlands, (Browne et al., 2018) found that out of
The main indirect methods include the travel cost method, 50 studies reviewed, replacement cost was used in nine
which can both be based on observation of visits of a single studies, avoided damage in four studies, and avoided cost
natural site (e.g., national park, historical site) or observation in two studies. Similarly, opportunity cost has been used
of the choice between different sites (e.g., choosing one site most studies that value protected areas in German-speaking
among multiple competing sites of same nature-beaches, Europe (Mayer & Job, 2014), whereas replacement cost
urban parks, recreational fishing areas). The hedonic price has been used in some cases to value ecosystem services
method is also an indirect valuation method where the provided by aquaculture (Custódio et al., 2020), valuing
housing market (usually, but not exclusively) is used to reveal ecosystem services in the Alps (Grêt-Regamey et al., 2008)
the value that people place on natural amenities or absence and dis-amenity value of incineration and landfilling (Eshet
of dis-amenities (Pandit et al., 2014; Taylor, 2008). The et al., 2005). Avoided damage cost has been used in fewer
methodology can also be used to value the risk of natural studies including the one that valued mangrove ecosystem
disasters (e.g., Tanaka & Zabel, 2018). service (Vo et al., 2012). Only one review study was found
that considered the production function method to value the
Another indirect method relates human health and nature ecosystem services provided by aquaculture (Custódio et
based on the relationship between health status or risk to al., 2020).
human health or even mortality and nature. The approach
can be used to assess negative values of nature such as Behaviour-based valuations that use non-monetary
health impacts from diseases transmitted through wild indicators are emerging, i.e., looking at human action
species. The negative values are usually monetised through and behaviour to identify the importance of human-
lost earning and cost of treatments (Clabaugh & Ward, nature relationships. Examples include fishing activities
2008; Ruijs et al., 2017). Knowledge of health impacts (Unnikrishnan & Nagendra, 2015), the examination of
in the context of protected areas across the developing documents, i.e. looking at texts, images, or other forms of
world is scarce as human health is rarely included in materials (Scholte et al., 2015), number of photos taken
valuation studies (Naidoo et al., 2019). Health valuation has by the public in an advert to indicate aesthetic values
multiple complex interactions and is further elaborated in (Everard et al., 2010); photo series analysis using social
section 3.2.2.4. media (Czembrowski et al., 2016), and the number of
wildlife pictures posted on a photo-sharing website as
The cost-based methods that aims to capture the value a proxy to obtain the recreation and ecotourism values
of supplying nature’s contributions to people include (Willemen et al., 2015). Some of the advantages of these
replacement cost, avoided damage cost, defensive methods include on-the-ground observation (structured,
expenditure and opportunity cost (Champ et al., 2003; unstructured, participant), consideration of the contexts
Farber et al., 2006). Replacement cost refers to the cost and details of the valuation objects, and in some cases
of replacing nature’s benefit or service (e.g., the value the free availability and easy accessibility of data (e.g.,
of cooling service provided by tree shades on homes on social media; Willemen et al., 2015). Limitations
by replacing the electricity cost of using air conditioner); include that interpretation and analysis of observations
164
Table 3 6 Summary of behaviour-based valuation methods23.
Application –
Category Valuation method Description/main features
Key references
Market methods The values of ecosystem services or nature’s contributions to people Farber et al., 2006; Aulia
(Market price) directly obtained from what people have paid for the service or good (e.g., et al., 2020
behaviour
observed
method
timber harvest). Only useful for traded goods and services.

Direct
Livelihood The livelihood dependence on nature of people. Useful in the context Adams et al., 2020; Daw
dependence where formal markets have limited roles and people rely on nature for et al., 2011; Yang et al.,
subsistence. 2013
Travel cost method Valuations of site-based amenities revealed by the costs people incur to Bockstael & McConnell,
enjoy them. Based on well-established theory. Commonly used to value 2007; Champ et al., 2003;
ecotourism and recreation values. Freeman et al., 2014;
Perez-Verdin et al., 2016
Recreational choice Valuation of access to nature areas and changes in the quality of the areas Hunt, 2005; Lupi et al.,
Indirect observed behaviour method
method based on observation of the choice between different nature areas. Based 2020; Raguragavan et
on well-established theory. Assumes full information about alternatives. al., 2013
Time spent analysis The value of nature, natural environment or biodiversity partly depends on Capaldi et al., 2014;
how much time people spend observing or experiencing such services and Stålhammar & Pedersen,
how people perceive the value. 2017
Hedonic pricing The value of a service is revealed from what people will be willing to pay Bishop et al., 2020;
method – amenity for the service through purchases in related or linked markets, such as Palmquist, 2008; Rosen,
value housing markets for open-space or other amenity and dis-amenity values. 1974; Taylor, 2008;
Assumes that people have full information about nature values associated Gibbons et al., 2014; von
with the purchase. Graevenitz, 2018; Eshet
et al., 2005
Hedonic wage The method estimates the risk changes associated with life-threatening Evans & Taylor, 2020;
method – value of events by valuing individuals’ willingness-to-pay to avoid risk or estimate Viscusi, 1993
statistical life the wage premium/compensating wage differentials required to accept
riskier jobs. Assumes full information determines choices.
Cost of illness The cost of illness links individuals’ behaviour and health outcomes Clabaugh & Ward, 2008
method including their costs. Relies on dose-response relations.
Replacement cost The loss of ecosystem services or nature’s contributions to people is Heal, 2005
method evaluated in terms of what would it cost to replace (e.g., tertiary treatment
values of wetlands if the cost of replacement is less than the value society
places on tertiary treatment).
Cost based methods
Avoided damage The biodiversity and ecosystem services or nature’s contributions to Barbier, 2007; Vo et al.,
cost method people is valued on the basis of costs avoided, or of the extent to which 2012a
it allows the avoidance of costly averting behaviours, including mitigation
(e.g., clean water reduces costly incidents of diarrhoea).
Defensive The incurred expenditures on supply of environmental services are used to Freeman et al., 2014;
expenditure method infer the implicit value of benefit from consumption of the services. Sinden et al., 2011
Opportunity cost Value of foregone benefits/the next best alternative use of resources (e.g., Batie & Mabbs-Zeno,
method agricultural use of water and land). The method also calculates the cost of 1985; Ruijs et al., 2017
preserving biodiversity.
Participant This method directly observes human behaviour (participant observation) Jerneck & Olsson, 2013
observation that reveals peoples’ preferences.
Document analysis This method involves analysis of text documents (texts or images) including Ostwald et al., 2013
Other methods
historical documents that indicates peoples’ preferences or the importance

they give to nature.
Photo series This method involves analysis of social media-based data (photos) to Keeler et al., 2015;
analysis method reveal peoples’ preferences. Particularly relevant to cultural ecosystem Richards & Friess, 2015;
services. Willemen et al., 2015
Citizen science A tool to understand citizen’s understanding. Communities and individuals Kaartinen et al., 2013;
method/Participatory are involved in designing a research question and perform scientific Schröter et al., 2017
action research experiments with minimum involvement of professional scientists.
are difficult (Jerneck & Olsson, 2013), data availability is A brief description of the behaviour-based methods and
limited, and reliability and validity issues for documents their main features and limitations are summarised in Table
exist (Ostwald et al., 2013; Piwowarczyk et al., 2013). 3.6 (more details provided in Annex 3.6). Good practice
These relatively new non-monetary valuation methods guidelines are presented in Annex 3.7.
nonetheless have the potential to impact valuation practice
in coming decades. zenodo.4404436). See behaviour-based valuation.
165
Challenges and potentials of behaviour-

at stake in a given policy context. While nature-based,
based methods
behaviour-based, and statement-based valuation can be
The main limitation of behaviour-based valuation is that the integrative, some methods are specifically designed to
methods require explicit assumptions about the relationships integrate inputs from different methods, or different types
between behaviour, characteristics of nature and its of values, often elicited using principles from different
contribution to well-being. This needs a well-established method families. As inclusion of diverse forms of values
conceptual and empirical understanding of the relationships and knowledge for decision-making is a key challenge in
which are often not available. It is often assumed that valuation, methods used to integrate values are reviewed
people act based on full information about nature. A global in this section. Integration can refer to following: diverse
assessment of disease burden from environmental risks and sometimes incommensurable value dimensions (i.e.,
found that the cost-of-illness method to assess prevalence of value pluralism, types of values; Dendoncker et al., 2018),
disease is poorly used in practice (Prüss-Üstün et al., 2016). different worldviews (i.e., knowledge systems; Jacobs
et al., 2016), the inclusion of the interest of different
The presumption of all cost-based methods that cost stakeholders groups, the application and integration of
is a good measure of societal value is not accurate and multiple valuation methods and tools, over aspects of the
adequate (Heal, 2005). For example, for replacement cost to nature-human system (biophysical – economic – well-being)
be an adequate measure of economic value of the nature’s and aggregations of results over spatial and temporal scales
contributions to people, the replaced object or system has (Jacobs et al., 2016). Integration often takes place implicitly
to be a least-cost alternative and like-for-like in quality and (in a decision informed by various types of information)
quantity (equivalent) to the nature’s contributions to people or through a designed process, which might not be fully
in question (Freeman III et al., 2014). explained or described. However, some integrative methods
used to bring together different types of information and
The main advantage of the behaviour-based valuation values to support decision-making are well-known and the
methods is that they avoid hypothetical bias (see statement- procedures described and formalised (Jacobs et al., 2018;
based methods, section 3.2.2.2). Combining statement- Pascual et al., 2017a).
based and behaviour-based valuation has been an active
area of research (Adamowicz et al., 1994; Cameron, 1992). Some valuation methods are inherently integrative and
For example, the travel cost method has been used in therefore do not fit well within the nature-based, behaviour-
conjunction with discrete choice experiments (Czajkowski based, and statement-based methods. These provide
et al., 2019; Ferrini et al., 2008) and been expanded to formalised ways of bringing together different forms of value
understand temporal stability of recreational values (e.g., and are therefore potentially useful methods for accounting
recreational value of Corong in Australia over a seven-year for diverse values of nature.
period (Rolfe & Dyack, 2019)). The potential to improve
valuations by combining nature-based methods with Integrated valuation methods therefore sit on the edge of
behaviour-based methods appear to be a promising area of “valuation methods” and “decision-making tools”, but still
valuation research. Examples include better specification of have inherent valuation features which determine which and
hedonic models using spatial biophysical resource mapping, how values are transferred to decisions (Gómez-Baggethun
combining degree of naturalness of sites in travel cost et al., 2014; Jacobs et al., 2016; Pascual et al., 2017).
methods. Behaviour-based valuation has the potential to A specific purpose of integration is to support decision-
contribute to natural capital accounting (Box 3.7, section making processes to bring together diverse values and
3.3.4.1) as it captures observed interactions between diverse stakeholders and support decision-making between
ecosystems and economic activities which are amenable to alternative courses of action. Decision-making at a higher
accounting principles. Developing standards to align outputs social scale than the individual requires consideration of how
from behaviour-based valuation to accounting standards is to define this higher scale, i.e., society or the community
also a potential of the methods to inform decision-making the valuation is relevant for. Furthermore, the principles
going forward (Box 3.7) (see 4.6.4.2). Improved access that determine how to adjudicate between different
to environmental, social and economic databases across possibilities also need to be decided. To help draw out the
global regions could reduce the barriers for the application methodological distinctions and suitability of the individual
of these valuation methods. integration methodologies, we distinguish between methods
which are integrative in terms of the value information they
3.2.2.4 Overview of integrated valuation bring together (Participatory Mapping, Production functions,
Integrated Modelling), and methods that are explicitly
methods
designed to inform decisions directly, i.e., “decision-
Integration involves a process or framework that synthesises making tools” (cost-benefit analysis, multi-criteria decision
different types of information with the overall purpose to analysis, participatory rural appraisal, deliberative decision
generate a more comprehensive understanding of values making). These categories are indeed overlapping, but the
166
Table 3 7 Overview of integrated valuation methods, including integrative methods and

decision support tools.
Detailed references on strengths and limitations can be found in Annex 3.8.
Integrated
Type Description/main features
valuation methods
Participatory mapping Spatial identification of NCP according to stakeholder knowledge (Brown & Fagerholm, 2015)
Integrative methods
Production function Indirect valuation method where nature is valued as an input into the production of a good or reduction
approaches in damages (e.g. Barbier, 2000, 2016; Custódio et al., 2020). The production function approach is
essentially an example of a combination of nature-based and behaviour-based valuation.
Integrated modelling Linking different models for a given purpose, without necessarily considering the sharing and reuse of
the contained models (Granell et al., 2013). Fundamentally, the purpose of model integration is to expand
the complexity of the representation of a system (Haacker et al., 2019). Consequently, an integrated
model can be defined as a system consisting of sequentially connected models of natural and/or social
systems (Haacker et al., 2019).
Cost-benefit analysis CBA is an economic framework to account for environmental impacts where the benefits and costs
CBA of different alternatives are measured and aggregated in monetary terms and compared to assess
the alternatives (Atkinson & Mourato, 2008; Dong et al., 2016). The aim is to account for positive and
negative consequences of alternatives by converting them into monetary flow. The analysis includes
identification of relevant impacts over the lifetime of alternatives in monetary units, calculation of
net present values by discounting the results to base year, conduct of sensitivity analysis, and
recommendation of the best alternative, sensitivity analysis and often distributional effects, and selection
of the alternative which maximizes social welfare (Boardman et al., 2018; Choy, 2018; Saarikoski et
al., 2016; Choy, 2018; Cimon-Morin et al., 2013; Duke et al., 2013). In particular, cost-benefit analysis
formalizes the procedure of how to convert benefits and costs of different impacts that occur at different
points in time.
Multi-criteria decision MCDA (or multi criteria decision-making MCDM) is a general framework for supporting complex
analysis MCDA decision-making situations with multiple and often conflicting objectives that stakeholder groups and/
or decision-makers value differently (Belton & Stewart, 2002). MCDA is also a set of methods to perform
Decision support tools
sustainability evaluations as a result of its flexibility and the possibility of facilitating dialogue between
stakeholders, analysts, and scientists (Cinelli et al., 2014). In all of these, the basic idea is to evaluate
alternatives with the multiple criteria that capture the key decision-making contexts. Stakeholders and
decision-makers outline a set of criteria by which to compare alternatives, score the performance of each
alternative against each criterion, and weigh the criteria based on their relative importance (Cegan et al.,
2017). MCDA techniques can be used to identify either the single most preferred alternative, to short-list
alternatives for subsequent analysis, to rank alternatives or to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable
possibilities (Achillas et al., 2013).
Participatory rural Participatory or rapid rural appraisal with the help of local people uses various tools like maps, seasonal
appraisal calendars, matrices, rankings, grouping, scoring, transect walks, analysis of trends and changes,
PRA institutional diagrams, and analytical diagrams. Participatory or rapid rural appraisal has been widely
used in natural resources management (for soil and water conservation, forestry, fisheries, wildlife,
community planning, etc.), programs for women and the poor, agriculture, health and food security
(Chambers, 1994).
Deliberative In deliberation, participants undergo a prolonged period of discussion and reflection on their own
decision-making values and viewpoints and those of other participants. Some deliberative methods aim to identify
processes group-level consensus opinions for decision support, providing an alternative to the simple aggregation
of individual preferences (Murphy et al., 2017; Palomo et al., 2011a). Including a deliberative element in
the valuation activities can lead to more informed (Lienhoop & MacMillan, 2007) and better decision-
making (Kenter et al., 2016). This information provision and preference formation objective underlies
many of the deliberative monetary valuation studies (e.g. Alvarez-Farizo & Hanley, 2006; Philip &
MacMillan, 2005).
distinction is important in interpreting the main strengths and comprehensive scientific information to decision–making
limitations24(Table 3.7). domains based on information derived from multiple
methods and values, and iv) to deal with issues of social
equity, fairness, and representativeness in effective ways.
Challenges and potential of integrated valuation
In summary, the benefits of applying integrated valuation A great deal of challenges comes together with the
of nature, identified from the above reviews, can be promises of integrated valuation. One way to look at the
categorised into its ability to: i) include multiple value challenges of integration is how to make the benefits of
dimensions and worldviews, ii) to take account various integrated valuation to be realised in practice. This includes
stakeholders interests into valuation process, iii) to provide for instance, how to identify and integrate/aggregate
multiple value dimensions in context; how to make sure
zenodo.4404436). See integrated valuation. various stakeholders groups participate in the process
167
to deal with various forms of equity and fairness; how to integration methods for complex valuation contexts, efforts
design and implement multidisciplinary research to obtain are needed to develop integration approaches that strike
comprehensive and scientifically credible outcomes; and how a balance between comprehensiveness, on the one hand,
to effectively deliver research outcomes to decision-makers. and ease of application, on the other. The review shows that
integrated valuation methods have been developed to elicit
To enhance the inclusion of multiple and diverse values, new a wide range of value types but it remains unclear whether
ways of combining value stating methods with methods these have been successfully used for decision-making.
from other families are explored. Each integrative process, Health valuation provides an example of a field where
however, has limitations, ranging from technical challenges experts are developing integrative frameworks to understand
to how well they can deal with uncertainty, power dynamics, linkages between biodiversity and human health and well-
representativeness, or ease of communication of the outputs. being (see Annex 3.9). Integrated valuation initiatives are also
Moreover, several integration methods require highly skilled developing to support decisions in the business sector, as
facilitators, and the results can be difficult to communicate businesses realise their dependence and impact on Nature
clearly to decision-makers. Given the importance of value (see Box 3.4).
Box 3 4 Methods for valuation of nature for businesses.
Businesses have impacts on nature (e.g., pollution, habitat to society, the economy, and the environment – by means
destruction, overexploitation) and are dependent on nature of a uniform, internationally recognized valuation method
(e.g., water use, pollination, flood protection). These impacts for calculating reliable sustainability metrics, metrics which
and dependencies are not visualised on a company’s profit previously are not reflected in a company’s balance sheet.
and loss statement or on their balance sheet. They remain The Alliance translates environmental and social impacts into
“externalities”, or issues without internal consequence. The lack comparable financial data. Traditional environmental and social
of standardisation across corporate environmental assessment reporting stops at the quantification of impacts (e.g., tonnes of
methods, including natural capital accounting standards and greenhouse gas emissions). The assignment of a monetary value
practices, has always been an obstacle for mainstreaming of to these impacts allows for an understanding of the scale of the
environmentally sustainable activities and assets across the consequences of more traditional measurement and reporting.
economy as well as correct corporate identification of and
management of environmental risks. Fortunately, the situation A promising development is the establishment of a business
is rapidly changing. Businesses that understand the true focused subgroup under the United Nations Committee of
value of nature can benefit from improved risk management, Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting (UNCEEA),
new business opportunities, improved communication with which will continue the work of the workstream on business
investors, enhanced stakeholder engagement and anticipation accounting (SEEA Business accounting, United Nations,
of future legislation. Therefore, businesses are increasingly 2019) under the “Natural Capital Accounting and Valuation of
looking for ways to measure and value their impacts and Ecosystem Services” (NCAVES) funded by the European Union.
dependencies on ecosystems. This workstream aims to improve the dialogue between national
statistics offices, businesses and the System of Environmental
There are several frameworks and methods for valuing nature in Economic Accounting (SEEA EA, United Nations, 2021a). Both
a business context. The Natural Capital Protocol (Natural Capital the overall concept of ecosystem accounting, as applied by
Coalition, 2016) has been instrumental in advancing the way the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (United
of thinking. It is a standardised framework to identify, measure, Nations, 2019) and specific elements of it might be instructive
and value direct and indirect business impacts (positive and for businesses that are interested in applying natural capital
negative) and/or dependencies on natural capital. The Protocol accounting (Lammerant, 2019, 2021a, 2021b).
aims to support better decisions by including how we interact
with nature, or more specifically natural capital, in decision- Companies that already apply tools for measuring biodiversity
making and provides guidance on all types of valuation, at site level and with a regular periodicity can easily integrate
whether qualitative, quantitative, or monetary. The Protocol this data into extent and condition accounts. Adding monetary
describes the main valuation techniques and helps businesses ecosystem services accounts will increase insights into the
to select the most appropriate one(s) for their assessment. links between ecosystem condition and ecosystem services
This framework approach is now being translated into more value. This will improve the business case for investments in
specific and prescriptive standards on measuring and valuing ecosystem restoration.
natural capital, such as the European Union funded Transparent
and Align projects. The project is led by the (Value Balancing In terms of natural capital data, a business consultation in
Alliance, 2021), an alliance of multinational companies coming 2019 confirmed that data collection is an expensive activity
together with a common goal: to create a way of measuring for companies. It’s often hard for sustainability professionals
and comparing the value of contributions made by businesses within the industry to justify return of investment. Therefore,
168
data sharing and open-source databases are very important away from nature-negative outcomes and toward nature-positive
for companies. Companies that start exploring the System outcomes. The Task Force is developing guidance on how to
of Environmental Economic Accounting will discover that measure and value nature-related risks and opportunities. A key
governments have plenty of natural capital information, often at development is the transformation of the European Union Non-
subnational level (e.g., watershed level, specific protected areas) Financial Reporting Directive into the European Union Corporate
which can help companies put their ecosystem performance Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) (European Commission,
in the right context. If national statistics offices invest in making 2021) which will become operational in 2023 and introduces
these natural capital data more accessible to businesses and more detailed reporting requirements. Also, during CoP26
tailoring them to the business needs, this would be a major step in Glasgow, the International Financial Reporting Standards
towards strengthening corporate natural capital accounting and Foundation has announced the creation of its new International
improving internal decision-making and external disclosure. Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) that will develop a
comprehensive global baseline of high-quality sustainability
Finally, there are many initiatives in the field of external disclosure. disclosure standards to meet investors’ information needs. All
One of them is the Task Force on Nature Related Financial these developments are expected to generate a tremendous
Disclosures (TNFD, 2021). The goal of this initiative is to provide a shift in the business and financial community mindset in terms
framework for organisations to report and act on evolving nature- of valuation of natural capital, a shift from shareholder to
related risks, in order to support a shift in global financial flows stakeholder capitalism (Bakker, 2020; WBCSD, 2021).
3.2.3 Valuation and diverse value method families (Figure 3.19 right). This illustrates that
valuation experts take a different perspective on what value
types
types the method they are using can assess. Nature-based
The IPBES value dimensions (IPBES, 2018) (see Chapter valuation assesses intrinsic values of nature by assessing
2) occur in all method families, with a dominance of e.g., how biodiversity underpin ecosystem functioning,
instrumental values throughout, and relational values being irrespective of the importance to people. In contrast,
the least represented. Nature-based valuations are more statement-based valuation assesses intrinsic values by
often considering intrinsic values than any of the other three assessing why people consider nature to be intrinsically
100%
Living as nature
(5%)
75%
Living in nature
(20%)
Living from nature
(41%)
50%
25%
Living with nature

(34%)
0%
at d
at d
at d
at d
lu se
lu se
lu se
lu ate
n
n
va -ba
va t-ba
va r-ba
io
io
io
io
va egr
e
t
en
ou
ur
In
m
at
vi
ha
e
N
at
Be
St
Relational values
Intrinsic values
Instrumental values
Figure 3 19 Value justifications or dimensions (IPBES 2018c) relative per method family and
mentioning’s of broad values related to the four life value frames.
Note that justifications as well as aspects of life value frames often co-occur in valuations (systematic indepth review n=1163).
169
100%
20%
29% 75%
1%
2%
50%
5%
25%
25% 18%
0%
at d
at d
at d
at d
lu se
lu se
lu se
lu ate
n
n
va -ba
va t-ba
va r-ba
io
io
io
io
va egr
e
t
en
u
ur
In
io
em
at
av
N
h
at
Be
St
Direct consumptive use Option values Altruistic values
Direct non-consumptive use Bequest values Existence values
Indirect use
Figure 3 20 Value types sensu “total economic value” framework in valuations.

Individuals
Cultural aspects (3%)
Individual
aspects (27%)
Biodiversity Assemblages
(44%) (44%) (36%)
Nature
Quality of life (28%)
(21%)
Societal aspects
(29%)
Processes
(17%)
Maintenance of options
(5%)
Nature’s contributions
to people
(46%)
Non-material NCP
(19%)
Regulation NCP
(47%)
Material NCP
(34%)
Figure 3 21 Percentual abundance of various valuation targets (systematic in-depth review

n=1163).
170
3%
100%
21% 26%
75%
50%
25%
50% 0%
at d
at d
at d
at d
lu se
lu se
lu se
lu ate
n
n
va -ba
va t-ba
va r-ba
io
io
io
io
va egr
e
t
en
u
ur
In
io
em
at
av
N
h
at
Be
St
100%
75%
Unclear
Socio-cultural indicators 50%
Biophysical indicators
Monetary indicators
25%
0%
ho ic
ds l
ds l
ho ra
ho a
et m
et sic
et tu
ds
m ono
m cul
m hy
op
o-
Ec
ci
Bi
So
Figure 3 22 Abundance of various value indicators over all valuations (upper left), relative
per method family (upper right) and per discipline (lower panel) (systematic in-
depth review n=1163).
valuable. So while both methodologies provide important valuations, and more often by nature-based valuations.
information on intrinsic values, they provide very different Option, bequest and altruistic values occur less often (7%
information for decision-making. Despite the potential lack in total) but still prevail throughout the four method families
of consistency in terminology used across the valuation (Figure 3.20).
field as a whole, the review provides clear evidence that
the assessment of instrumental values has been the main Regarding IPBES value targets, valuations have also
focus in the literature. The Living from, with, in and as nature considered the full range (Figure 3.21, Figure 3.15). Just
value frames are prevailing in all four method families. Living under half of the valuations target nature’s contributions
as nature is the least abundant, while living with and from to people, while nature itself and good quality of life are
nature are roughly equally represented (Figure 3.19 left). targeted in roughly a quarter of valuations each (Figure
3.21). Distribution among subcategories of IPBES value
Valuations have considered the full range of specific value targets (IPBES, 2018) further demonstrates the diversity of
types sensu total economic value classification. While use valuations (Figure 3.21).
values (including indirect use) are the dominant target of
valuations, existence values are targeted in 20% of the
171
Valuations have applied a broad range of value indicators to economic methods more often use monetary indicators),
articulate the diverse values of nature. The most commonly this is by far not a discrete and exclusive relationship.
used indicators are biophysical, due to the dominance of Monetary, Biophysical and Socio-cultural indicators are
biophysical valuations. While the use of certain indicators is found in valuation studies from every method family and
skewed to a certain method family or discipline (e.g., nature- disciplinary group (Figure 3.22).
based methods more often use biophysical indicators,
Table 3 8 Valuation methods can be classified into four method families with distinct
characteristics.
Valuation method families
Statement-based Behaviour-based Integration

Nature-based methods
methods methods methods
What is Nature, physical or What people express when What people do in nature, Different outputs from one
assessed? ecological components of asked about the importance for nature, with nature, to, or more methods, to support
nature of nature as nature decision-making
How is Measuring nature and its Asking people (interviews, Observing people, Synthesising, comparing,
information functions through several questionnaires), analysing assessing records of people’s contrasting, deliberating,
about values methods such as remote other expressions (e.g., behaviour (e.g., park visits, consolidating or aggregating
generated? sensing, field observations, narratives, discussions, art, policy choices, (non-)market diverse values for decision-
consulting experts, etc. etc.) exchanges, etc.) making or decision support
Which values are Mainly intrinsic and Instrumental, intrinsic and Mostly instrumental values Instrumental, intrinsic and
elicited instrumental values relational values relational values
Examples of Species richness, CO2 Preferences for nature’s Time spent, share of Strength of support or
value indicators stored, ecological indicators contributions to people, household income, objections to policy options,
subjective well-being prevalence of disease, price welfare gains or losses from
indicators, narratives of of land, use of plants projects
human-nature relationships,
required compensations
Examples of Biodiversity assessment, Group discussion, Participant observation, Natural capital accounting
methods and ecosystem services Q-methodology, travel cost method, cost-benefit analysis
approaches mapping, Delphi method choice experiments, cost-based method, multi-criteria decision
valuation interviews livelihood dependence, aid, integrated modelling,
photo-series analysis deliberative decision methods
Type of Most methods do not Most methods include Most methods have limited Some methods can be
stakeholder include stakeholders, stakeholders to some extent stakeholder inclusion (e.g., non-inclusive (e.g., desktop
inclusion though some inclusive (e.g., surveys) and inclusion analysis of market accounts) multicriteria decision
approaches exist (e.g., is often integral to the but some include diverse analysis MCDA) but often,
based on local ecological method (e.g., participative stakeholders inclusion is key to the
knowledge) approaches) decision support aspect
(e.g., participatory scenario
building)
Examples of Biodiversity indices, Ranked importance of Ranked importance of Ranked policy
typical valuation maps of priority areas for components of nature or components of nature or options, evaluation of
“products” policy/management action, nature’s contributions to nature’s contributions to socio-economic and
improved understanding people, (monetary) value of people, quantified changes environmental impacts of
of the importance of protection of biodiversity- in values nature or nature’s policy options, improved
components of nature rich areas, explanations for contributions to people, understanding of conflicts/
why people value nature explanations for why people shared values of nature
value nature
Limitations/ Impact on people assumed Concern about reliability of Requires conceptual and Aggregation of values
concerns but not assessed, statements, power disparity empirical understanding of across groups of people
dependence of nature is can reduce the validity of the relationships between can reduce representation
not assessed by the people group-based methods, behaviour, nature and its of values, combining
dependent on the resources representativeness in contribution to well-being, multiple value types
selection of respondents challenging to reveal creates incommensurability
in-depth understanding concerns
of motivations behind
behaviour
172
Valuation methods and approaches: diverse as a

phenomena of valuing for different purposes (see 3.1 for
whole, but specific in their application
definition of valuation).
While the reach of valuation methods and approaches in
their totality is clear from the above, it is important to note Past reviews and assessment of valuation methods
that individual valuation methods are often highly specific. (Annex 3.1) do not discuss or describe how valuation
Most valuations apply a single main method, but quite methods have been applied within indigenous peoples
often methods are combined and auxiliary methods are and local communities (IPLC); nor do they compile and
used to complement the valuation. A biophysical valuation synthesise valuation methods that are used by IPLC. The
can for instance be complemented with a benefit transfer terms ‘indigenous’ and ‘Indigenous and Local Knowledge
to articulate value in monetary units, or a statement-based (ILK)’ are absent from the economics of ecosystems
method applies outputs from a biophysical mapping to and biodiversity’s 2010 synthesis report, for example,
reveal preferences. While these are not necessarily full and mentioned only twice in the 2018 report. A review
method combinations, they still broaden the range of values of published IPBES assessments including a total of
included and indicators used in valuations. nine ILK Dialogues (three of which were conducted for
the values assessment) that took place across these
In summary, there are many methods and approaches assessments between 2015 and 2021 as well as the
available to achieve valuation of nature and its contributions recently released Local Biodiversity Outlook 2 (Forest
to people, and to articulate these values to the decision- Peoples Programme, 2020), a complement to the fifth
making process. Nature-based, statement-based, Global Biodiversity Outlook (Secretariat of the Convention
behaviour-based and integrated methods each have their on Biological Diversity, 2020) emphasises the critical
own features, strengths and limitations for application (see contribution that IPLC worldwide make to the achievement
Table 3.8). of the Aichi Targets. However, none of them discusses or
reviews any valuation methods and approaches, including
The diversity of methods and approaches, and the specific IPLC valuation.
limitations and strengths, call for combining different
complementary methods. Limitations can as such be Historically, the study of IPLC processes through western
alleviated and strengths combined, and a more diverse science lenses has led to gross misrepresentations of IPLC,
set of values can be elicited and articulated. In practice, their traditions as well as their knowledge systems (Battiste
consulting valuators from different disciplinary backgrounds & Henderson, 2000; Smith, 2003; Smith, 2012). Valuation
can help select the appropriate method(s). Mixed-method studies undertaken in IPLC contexts and conducted by
approaches however can be more demanding regarding researchers who use western science approaches to
skills, resources and time. The investment in the valuation interpret people’s expressions, behaviours and decisions,
process depends on the complexity and stakes of the often falls short in their ability to adequately capture IPLC’s
valuation context: high stakes and high complexity justify holistic and multi-layered understanding of and relations with
investing in a more complex and demanding valuation (see nature (Box 3.5).
Chapter 1).
In this section, we demonstrate the value and limitations
Several limitations and concerns do not stem from one of integrating knowledge systems and particularly ILK and
specific method, approach or method family, but apply to western science approaches. We first apply the methods
valuation as a whole. Section 3 will deepen the assessment families classification system to describe and understand
of some of these main issues and concerns and offer IPLC valuation from a western science perspective. Doing
guidance to improve the practice of valuation. so facilitates the detection of numerous coincidences
and similarities between IPLC and non-IPLC valuation
processes; the existence of shared characteristics and
3.2.4 Valuation practice in IPLC processes for valuation between knowledge systems points
contexts to the potential that exists for dialogue, knowledge sharing
and knowledge integration. Indeed, indications of integration
The fields of ethnography, anthropology, conservation already exist in the few examples we were able to find of
sciences and development studies have generated a rich intercultural valuation methods (i.e., methods that draw from
knowledgebase for understanding the nature-specific both western science and ILK) (Box 3.5).
values of IPLCs, how these values are manifested (i.e., the
“valuing” process), and in some cases their value systems Understanding IPLC valuation using a western science
and worldviews. This body of literature imparts very little perspective can make explicit the limitations of rigid
knowledge and understanding, however, about IPLC application of the “methods families” approach, beyond
valuation. For example, how those values are elicited and western-science informed approaches, particularly in terms
assessed in order to generate meaningful insights into the of their inability to adequately describe the full diversity of
173
Box 3 5 Understanding “evidence” from IPLC epistemologies.
Respecting IPLC valuation requires comprehension of of the ancestors within a specific geographic area, and
indigenous worldview that elicits a holistic view of nature in passed down from one generation to the other. Therefore,
which humans are part of it and not detached from it, and the knowledge emerging from storytelling is valid and reliable
which is vital to understand how evidence is conceptualised, because storytelling is created and shared through relationships
acquired and shared within IPLC contexts (LaDuke, 1999; and stands as valid, and reliable only in the relationship
McGregor, 2004). In western disciplines, ILK is validated into (Wilson, 2008).
an academic discipline through a validation process or co-
production of knowledge wherein participants from diverse Relationality is what distinguishes indigenous storytelling from
knowledge systems concur to research processes. Still, qualitative research methodologies that use storytelling as a
research questions and methodologies are defined outside method for capturing single life stories (Batty, 2009; Portelli,
indigenous worldviews (Smith, 1999). Other approaches 1997). Storytelling is not captured in journal papers but in
centre on validity being assumed independently within each videos, reports, web pages, and similar material produced
knowledge system creation and acceptance of findings are mainly by IPLC and their organisations. Indigenous researchers
decided within different institutional settings (Smith, 1999; continue to struggle with questions regarding the validity of
Tengö et al., 2014). their knowledge production, for example, when they are asked
about the difference between talking circles and focus groups.
Indigenous researchers who mostly write from their living The answer lies in the nuances of their worldviews that are, for
realities, are constantly under pressure to validate or provide instance, placed-based and ritualistic. Therefore, talking circles
evidence of knowledge production within a western academic are different to focus groups because talking circles distinguish
standard. This is because there is a lack of understanding the rituals and protocols underpinning indigenous’ ceremonial
of indigenous ways of knowing (epistemology), ways of performance (Huambachano, 2018).
being (ontology) and ways of doing research (axiology).
However, “relationality” is a vital component of an indigenous It is important to find ways to adequately consider indigenous
worldview, highlighting the holistic view that human and peoples’ worldviews, agency, systems of knowledge systems,
non-human entities are interconnected to the streams of life, and evidence (McGregor, 2004; Smith, 1999). Indigenous
and therefore a relationality balance is required to maintain an scholars are heralding novel research models to reclaim
equilibrium between all entities (Huambachano, 2018). For indigenous voices within research that support their well-being
example, storytelling is a method of gathering, preserving, and sovereignty aspirations (Estrada, 2005; Huambachano,
and interpreting the oral accounts and voices (knowledge) 2018; Pihama et al., 2002; Wilson, 2008).
valuation practice that is undertaken by IPLC. On the one 3.2.4.1 From valuing Indigenous and
hand, it is an indication of the need to assess the logic Local Knowledge (ILK) to valuation
of the Methods Families classification (e.g., what type
by Indigenous Peoples and Local
of information is considered relevant for valuation?) and
reflect on how families could be restructured or expanded
Communities (IPLC): A historical context
so that they are more inclusive of other worldviews (e.g.,
could statement-based valuation include expressions by IPLCs as providers of local knowledge for
non-human species and ancestor?). On the other hand, valuation: Valuation in IPLC contexts
it highlights the larger issue of limitations of knowledge
integration: not all knowledge is compatible and thus Indigenous people and local communities have contributed
feasible to integrate, in some cases integration can only important sources of data, knowledge and information for
be partial, and that there is great value in allowing multiple valuation studies conducted by outsiders often without their
parallel approaches to co-exist without the need for knowledge or consent. Their contributions to nature-based
integration or cross-validation between knowledge systems valuation have been recognized and is increasingly critiqued,
(Chilisa, 2020; Johnson et al., 2016; L. T. Smith, 2012). particularly their unconsented role in assisting researchers
In this vein, the same set of data was assessed through to understand and monitor species population, population
an IPLC lens, applying one of many indigenous science dynamics, long-term life cycles of plants or animals, and the
approaches. The results are an opportunity to understand rich biodiversity inhabiting their territories (Antunes et al.,
IPLC valuation without the requirement of fitting it into a 2018; Berkes, 2008).
classification system that was not developed with IPLC
approaches in mind. Indigenous and local knowledge continues to enrich
scientific and other pursuits today. Brook & McLachlan
(2008) examined 40,900 articles published in 360 journals
and assessed 12 prominent ecological and conservation
174
journals to characterise how local and ecological knowledge Berlin et al., 1974; Ellen, 1993; Ford, 1994; Hunn, 1977,
has been used in the ecological and conservation literature 1982; Posey, 1985). This paved the way in academia and
over the last 25 years (1983 – 2008). Their work is highly development arenas for the inclusion of local perspectives
informative of the incorporation of ILK into conservation in setting priorities for sustainable development (Rhoades
sciences (e.g., interview methods were the most common & Bebbington, 1995; Rhoades & Booth, 1982; Warren et
methods used to solicit ILK). Despite a growing use of al., 1989). As a result, IPLC practices have been widely
ILK and specifically Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) promoted and ILK has become ‘information currency in the
in conservation research, they reported that studies international agricultural research centers and the World
“generally failed to actively include community members Bank’ (Nazarea, 2006).
in the research process” (Brook & McLachlan, 2008, p.
3501). Indeed, although indigenous empirical knowledge of The recognition of indigenous peoples as legitimate right
nature is highly regarded by external researchers, spiritual holders primarily determined their participation in the
dimensions of knowledge production or interactions with valuation of nature and active inclusion of their principles
the unseen world as a source of knowledge production or life values. Human rights and international environmental
are usually disqualified in disciplinary discourses (Gaudry, instruments, such as the International Labour Organization
2011; McGregor, 2004; Simpson, 2011; Wilson, 1995). It Convention 169 in 1989, the CBD in 1992, the United
has often been the case that information and observations Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
obtained from IPLC that do not fit classic academic (UNDRIP) in 2020, cemented the path for indigenous
standards of “reliable” data have been omitted or recognition. These instruments provided legal tools such
misinterpreted by the non-indigenous scientific community as the duty to consult and seek free, prior and informed
(Agrawal, 2002; Johnson et al., 2016; Turner et al., 2008). consent with the potential to empower indigenous
ILK and indigenous science and worldviews are generally participation in environmental assessment and decision-
underrepresented knowledge generation institutions and making scenarios worldwide (Cariño & Colchester, 2010;
are often subjected to validation procedures developed by Orduz Salinas, 2014). Moreover, the creation of the United
western informed epistemologies (Johnson et al., 2016; Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII)
Louis, 2007; Tuck & Yang, 2012). In the policy context, established a legitimate space for voicing indigenous
policymakers have often dismissed community information peoples’ concerns against development projects and other
when not aligned with their objectives (Agrawal, 2002; multifaceted threats to their ways of life, internationally
IPBES, 2019c). acknowledged as compatible with sustainable use and
conservation of biodiversity (Stankovitch, 2008). Institutional
policies and guidelines of international financial agencies
IPLCs as the subject of valuation studies
about the observation of the United Nations Permanent
by outsiders
Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) peoples’ rights
Indigenous and local people are often the subject of confirmed the trend towards recognizing indigenous
ethnographic and anthropological studies undertaken peoples (Corntassel, 2003; Davis, 1993; World Bank, 2016).
to describe, characterise and explore their broad and Additionally, changes in the global legal framework have
specific values, their cosmovision and worldviews, and boosted indigenous peoples’ international, national, and
their socio-political and economic contexts. The study of local initiatives for inclusion of sensitive cultural, social, and
the importance of nature to IPLC worldwide is perhaps the economic information on indigenous peoples’ well-being
most studied dimension of the interlinks and dependencies aimed to secure incidence on policy, programs, research,
between IPLC and their natural environment and it is and decision-making processes (Cariño, 2008).
the subject of tens of thousands of publications on
rural livelihoods. During 2006 and 2007, the United Nations Permanent
Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) and the International
In the mid-1950s and early 1960 the application of Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) led proposals for
economic and non-economic valuation in IPLC territories designing a global index on indigenous peoples’ well-being,
emerged from an anthropological perspective. The initial relevant life conditions, and concerns of indigenous peoples
objective of this perspective was to “understand local lore” to influence the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and
with the purpose of documenting and evaluating what IPLC the CBD work. In 2015, the new Sustainable Development
value about nature, and the practices and approaches they Goals (SDGs) and the CBD Aichi Targets adopted a
have developed to conserve biodiversity (see Conklin, 1957; framework more inclusive of indigenous peoples’ concerns,
Frake, 1962; Goodenough, 1957). Applying the principles but indigenous influence was still limited (IPBES, 2019b).
of cognitive/linguistic and ethnoscience systematised data Similar proposals about inclusive indicators were put
collection and analysis, indigenous and local knowledge forward, for example, in Canada the holistic health model
and technologies were vigorously documented particularly advanced by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), 2006
in the 1970s and 1980s (Atran, 1985; Berlin, 2014; and in Aotearoa New Zealand the Mauri Ora framework
175
(Durie, 2001) and towards a Mâori Statistics Framework 3.2.4.2 The evidence-base for IPLC
(Statistics New Zealand, 2008). Indigenous peoples have valuation
also designed culturally sensitive indicators at a regional
scale, “Living conditions in the Arctic” (Andersen & Poppel, Insights into IPLC valuation and IPLC valuation methods
2008) and at the local level, for example, the Tuawhenua and approaches comes from a small body of literature that
tribal group in New Zealand (Lyver et al., 2017). These have was obtained from three separate efforts by authors of the
led to the recent development of indigenous ecosystem values assessment to collate literature on ILK relevant for
services valuation frameworks such as those emerging the assessment. Thirteen publications were obtained from
today in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. A small but Chapter 3’s systematic literature review of valuation practice
growing movement is currently underway, in which IPLC between 1980 and 2020. In a wider call for contributions
scholars worldwide are calling for indigenous thinking on ILK25 that was made by the IPBES ILK task force, 8 out
to be recognised in developing indigenous and hybrid of a total of 420 contributions provided frameworks and
methodologies, all in the context of indigenous science and approaches that were relevant for IPLC valuation. Finally,
research and decolonizing methodologies (Chilisa, 2017; only 2 publications describing methods, approaches and
Pihama, 2010). Section 3.3.1.2 lists examples of indigenous frameworks were identified from a set of 265 academic
and other approaches that are emerging to counteract publications that were part of a systematic literature
dominant perspectives of knowledge creation of the last review on global Philosophies of good living26. In-depth
centuries. They represent an exciting space for improving review of the 23 publications revealed that only 14 provide
current understanding of IPLC valuation and developing relevant information on IPLC valuation, mostly in the form
practices, protocols and methods for undertaking valuation of indigenous research frameworks proposing general
in IPLC contexts. approaches (i.e., not specifically about valuation of nature).
for generating knowledge and understanding through
indigenous worldviews.
Valuation for advocacy and securing of IPLC rights
With the backing and support of environmentalists, Due to the paucity of published literature on IPLC valuation
anthropologists and cultural ecologists, IPLC have utilised in English, a targeted call for contributions from contributing
the power of valuation to lay claims on competing interests authors was conducted by approaching 76 IPLC scholars
over their territories, to advocate for sovereignty over their and ILK experts to request information specific to valuation
lands, and to demonstrate the value of their practices and methods and approaches. The contributions consisted
knowledge for biodiversity conservation (Orlove & Brush, of written essays (i.e., unpublished works) backed by
1996). Indigenous mobilisation and resistance have been evidence, 1000 to 1500 words in length. The essays
deployed by indigenous peoples to make visible their responded to specific questions obliging experts to explore
worldview and understanding about their relationships and describe the process of valuing and valuation of the
with Mother Earth or territory (Ellis, 2005; Nazarea, 2006; communities that they belong to or work in. Out of the
Orlove & Brush, 1996). Indigenous peoples today mobilise 76 solicitations that were made, 26 individuals returned
and resist to safeguard aboriginal and environmental rights essays. Descriptions and characterization of IPLC valuation
threatened by exclusionary extractive natural resource described in the following subsections are informed by
projects. Forest concessions, mineral extraction, dam these essays. Although these 26 contributions covered a
construction, oil exploration, infrastructure development, wide range of IPLC groups from all five IPBES regions and
violation of social and human rights have motivated across different livelihood types, they represent a very small
massive demonstrations, occupancy of highways or towns, proportion of IPLC worldwide (Figure 3.23) and should not
blockades, and other manifestations of civil disobedience be generalised to all IPLCs.
(Borrows, 2016; Lackenbauer & Belanger, 2014). Athayde
(2014) shows how indigenous resistance of Amazonian 3.2.4.3 General description of valuing
peoples as the Kayapo and Munduruku actively contributed
processes in IPLC contexts
and inspired social mobilisation against damming rivers for
hydropower in the Amazon.
What is valued?
In recognition of these efforts and of the importance of A total of 142 excerpts contributed to identifying and
bringing the IPLC perspective on valuation to light, this subsequently characterising the components of life and
chapter attempts to explicitly include IPLC principles in the nature that become the subject of valuation exercises (i.e.,
criteria for collection of evidence, in its analytical framework the valuing processes) in IPLC contexts. After coding these
and assessment criteria, and in the designated assessment
activities and evidence sources. 25. Call for contributions on indigenous and local knowledge (https://doi.
org/10.5281/zenodo.4390417).
26. Philosophies of good living ILK cross-assessment case study (cross-
chapter/ILK) (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4399544)
176
%) LIVIN
RE (12
MN
ATU GA LIF
O SN E
FR AT
VI
NG UR FR
LI E(
Other
AM )
(6%)
43
B
)
4%
ES
Sc
%
ho
(1
lar
AC
OF
RE
KG
TU
NA
%
w
(26
RO
NA
ith
TUR
ECA Hunters
ILK
rs
ITH
RE
UND
Indigenous schola
LIVELIHOODS
exp
Pastoralists
GIO
E’S VALUES REFLE

LIVING W
erience (68%)
OF CONTRIBU
AF Herders
ILK hol ers
N
AP
AL BA
d
Fishers
Farmers
LAN
Gatherers
AM
CE
Other
TIN
CT
G
)
1%
AU
ED
T
(3
HO
IN
E
RS
CO
UR
N
NAT TR
N IB
GI UT
LIVIN IO
NS
Figure 3 23 Concentric circles describing the content of the contributions: Regional

balance of the contributions across the four IPBES regions; Background of
contributing authors; Life frames of nature’s values and their relation to the
communities livelihood strategies.
AF = Africa, AM = Americas, AP = Asia Pacific, ECA = Europe and Central Asia.
excerpts we identified that out of the total of excerpts the Holistic valuing is predominant among IPLC whose principal
following focus of valuation were mentioned, noting that one worldviews were living as nature and living with nature (see
excerpt could express more than one focus of valuation: Chapter 2).
a) elements of nature itself including elements that might
are not strictly considered as nature in western science Figure 3.24 combines the results from the question “what is
contexts, such as the Moon and Sun, rain, rocks and the valued?” with value types and lists the full set of values that
metaphysical (39%); b) material contributions of nature were identified in the excerpts. Note that a direct one-to-
(35%) and to a lesser extent, non-material contributions one relationship does not exist between the elements that
of nature such as relationships with nature, physical & are valued (the circles) and the types of values that emerge.
psychological experiences, aesthetics, spirituality, and One might be tempted to associate relational values, for
identity (5%); c) natural processes including the regulating example, with non-material nature’s contributions to people.
functions of nature such as water regulation, climate Or instrumental values to material nature’s contributions to
regulation, soil erosion control & soil fertility, regulation people. This is not necessarily the case, however. Also, one
of hazards (13%); d) holistic elements of nature such as, might assume that intrinsic values are only directed towards
spirituality, ancestry and beliefs which were a challenge nature. However, as Figure 3.24 shows, they represent
to situate in the IPBES conceptual framework (8%); and only 8% of the value types identified while nature (as a
d) good quality of life (0%) although many excerpts refer value target) was mentioned in 24% of the excerpts related
to good quality of life as the purpose of valuation (Figure to what is valued. This example demonstrates the deep-
3.24). They were characterised as holistic because – on the rooted and holistic connection that IPLC have with nature,
one hand – they associate elements of nature with nature’s which is a key distinction between indigenous and western
contributions to people and good quality of life; on the other, approaches of valuation.
they integrate other aspects of life and the experience of
living that are not time and space bound and not limited to A broad diversity of values and value categories were
the physical and tangible aspects of nature. highlighted explicitly within the revised contributions. These
177
- Ayni - Sacred reciprocity
RELATIONAL
Good - Yanantin - Duality
VALUES
- Chaninchay - Solidarity
48%
Quality of Life - Ayllu - Collectiveness
- Laughter
- Manaakitanga - Hospitality, care, sharing
5% Non-Material - Reverence
NCPs - Inayan - Humility, truthfulness, fidelity, honesty, commitment
INSTRUMENTAL
Material - Capacity to respond to risk (of ecosystems)
- Economic value
NCPs Holistic elements
VALUES
8% - Value of nature as a shelter or place to live
35%
44%
(can’t be placed in one box) - Health indices
35% - Market value
- Ecosystem elements as means to achieve human ends
Regulating - Nutritional value
13%
13% NPCs - Value of the land (for use and production)
spects o
ra
e
fN
Broad
INTRINSIC
- Value of ecosystem quality (independent of use)
Nature
VALUES
ature
- Intrinsic value of biodiversity and components of nature

24%
8%
24% - Historical value of a site
- Biological value of a site
13% - Value of nature in its own right
13%
Figure 3 24 Projection of the focus of valuation (what is valued?) by IPLCs and the types of
values that IPLC valuation captures onto the IPBES conceptual framework.
Note that the nature component includes broader aspects of nature that would not usually be considered as nature in non-IPLC
contexts, such as the Sun and Moon. Also, that holistic elements at the centre cover in fact the full context. The size of the
circles indicates the number of excerpts supporting the component from a total of 142 excerpts. On the right, types of values are
indicated along with a list of examples that were extracted from the essays.

¯

Figure 3 25 Values reported by the contributing authors.

In orange: values from communities with Human- Nature Worldviews; in blue values from communities with Non-Human- Nature
Worldviews; in green values shared by both types of worldviews.
contributions were classified between those that reflect wide diversity of values made visible through indigenous
worldviews that address human-nature and non-human- methodologies and approaches that have implications for
nature relationships, values emerging from both types decisions regarding nature.
of worldviews and those that were shared among them
were identified (Figure 3.25). The contributions present a
178
Some examples of the excerpts mentioning values are by everyone in the dry season; and they still share even
presented below27: if this means the producer remains with almost nothing.
BaYaka explain that if they didn’t share, their ekila would
Spiritual values: For Shona communities in South Africa be ruined and they would no longer catch fish or find
‘In traditional Shona cosmology large trees are believed food.’ (Contribution 12).
to be the dwelling place of ancestral spirits (O´Flaherty,
1997). Some animal species are also protected due Cultural values: For the Ogiek communities ‘Cultural
to their spiritual value, for example the pangolin (Manis and spiritual values shaped by the lands and territories’
temmickii) (Virtanen, 2005). Most of such species- (Contribution 21).
related controls are based on traditional religion, and
they include both totem-related taboos and species
How values are manifested
that are connected to ancestral worship of witchcraft
(Mussanhane et al., 2000).’ (Contribution 3). A total of 213 excerpts from the essays conveyed
information relevant for assessing how the process of
Environmental and health values: For Canadian First valuing – or of enacting one’s values – is manifested in
Nations ‘This explains that while the natural environment IPLC contexts. Seven ways for expressing values were
is recognized as existing to serve the needs of the identified. Values can be expressed as appreciation of the
residents, the economic imperative is not the only world and components of nature; as daily decisions, actions
consideration. Nature is considered to be valuable and practices; as the exchange of goods and services in
in its own right and environmental health is seen as traditional markets; as how and which knowledge about
symbiotically connected to human health and well- nature is generated, shared and secured; as specific norms
being. It is also important to emphasize that human and regulations; as ethical principles, and; as belief systems.
health and well-being is conceptualized in a holistic way. A brief description of each is provided in Annex 3.10 with
Mental and emotional health is considered to be just as some examples and their implication for valuation.
important as physical health.’ (Contribution 24).
Although values are enacted in a number of different ways
Sharing: For BaYaka communities ‘Sharing is in all regions, most values are expressed as everyday
fundamental to these groups’ sociality. BaYaka share decisions, actions and practices, and as beliefs (Figure
even when there would seem to be no need to share, 3.26).
for instance, when huge amounts of fish are captured
Contributions also highlight values as principles that feature
27. Analysis of contributions on values and valuation methods by ILK experts
and holders (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4404612).
prominently and regulate their day-to-day activities. Many
45
40 Actions
Appreciation
35 Attitudes
Beliefs
30
Ethical principles
25 Knowledge
Market
20
Rules & decisions
15
10
0
Africa Americas Asia and the Pacific Europe and Central
Asia
Figure 3 26 How values are expressed and manifested in IPLC contexts.

IPLC valuation methods assess these manifestations to make multiple conclusions about nature and human-nature relations in
their communities. Values represent the number of excerpts from the 26 essays that conveyed these ways of value expression.
179
of these principles share key components and are usually human relations and reporting this to individuals, leaders,
connected to values such as respect, reciprocity, sharing, or the whole community. Seers, interpreters, healers,
caring, connection with nature and moral values. For Shamans, the community patrol teams, women returning
example, the BaYaka communities of Tanzania identify joy, from the farms, report their results to the community
food and “multi-species companionship” as the most highly whenever it is needed and decisions about nature are made
valued virtues around which key cultural institutions and based on their assessments.
activities revolve (Contribution 12). In a similar vein, Quechua
communities in South America identify sacred reciprocity,
The purpose of valuation in IPLC valuation
solidarity and duality with nature and with each other as
the pillars of their existence and relations with one another Reasons for undertaking valuation in IPLC are numerous
(Contribution 13). Annex 3.11 provides additional examples and can be grouped into 10 principal purposes (Figure
from all the IPBES regions. 3.27) with the most frequently mentioned purpose was
to generate, transmit and share knowledge about what is
3.2.4.4 Description of valuation practice valued communally. Importantly, valuation is motivated by
reasons that transcend the standard categories of reasons
in IPLC contexts
such as fulfilling human wellbeing, ecological sustainability,
The descriptions of valuation provided by ILK experts and justice objectives. Decisions and actions are usually
suggest that – in IPLC valuation – the boundaries between part of a continuous interaction with the deities and non-
value expression, value elicitation and decision-making are human entities. When communities are not disentangled
more permeable and these processes are not necessarily from their lands, then the environmental indicators,
linear. This makes it challenging to describe valuation mandates from spiritual beings, and guidelines emerging
as if it were a distinct and separate process from that of within IPLC’s settings are the ones that aid in decision-
valuing and acting on those values; valuation is usually making to preserve nature. In other words, the information
undertaken alongside other cultural processes. Additionally, required for making decisions is not necessarily accessed
IPLC valuation is oftentimes a collective process in which through purposed observation, surveying, or measuring
most – if not all – members participate and the values are biophysical components of the environment, although these
elicited and assessed by all. Also, interpretations can be actions could be part of the process. Rather, valuation is
collectively discussed, and consensus is reached before the often undertaken as part of a ceremony, to fulfil traditions
information generated can inform decisions. Some valuation and for educational purposes unrelated to decision-
is commissioned by leaders or community members for very making per se. Valuations are conducted to celebrate life
specific purposes. However, other valuation is conducted and share with human and non-human entities (which
with much less “formality” because it is part of the day- might be considered a dimension of human wellbeing), to
to-day activities of the “valuators” or valuation experts. fulfil individual and communal obligations towards nature
Consequently, a wide range of individuals in the community as part of relational links, and to generate, transmit and
are considered legitimate valuation experts who specialise in share knowledge between community members and
continuously assessing nature, human-nature and human- across groups.
To apply justice & conflict resolution
To celebrate life & share
To raise awareness
To guide practices
To assess or oppose threats
Planning
Ecological sustainability
Human wellbeing
Fulfilling relational obligations towards nature
Generating, transmitting and sharing knowledge
0 2 4 6
Figure 3 27 The main purpose of valuation in IPLC contexts as described by ILK experts
based on the number of essays that mentioned these purposes.
180
Community members are the principal actors and 3.2.4.5 Methods and approaches in IPLC
influencers (see 6.1) triggering, leading and moderating valuation
the valuation process in their communities. Other key
stakeholders are other local communities, civil society,
religious stakeholders, national and subnational governors, Applying the methods families: a western
non-governmental organisations, and researchers. When sciences perspective
valuation is an IPLC-led process, valuation experts The practices and approaches described by ILK experts
consist of people who are trusted in the community in their essays were allocated to method families based on
and who have the knowledge and skills to provide whether the process assesses values based on attributes
reliable information about values of nature. As such, the of nature (nature-based valuation); or evaluates specific
responsibility of generating information on values can be or broad values and worldviews based on statements
given to specific individuals or groups depending on their and expressions (statement-based valuation) or based on
role in the community (e.g., leaders, chiefs), their age direct and indirect observations of people (behaviour-based
(e.g., youth, elders, cohorts), gender, skills or livelihood valuation). Valuation processes that combined information
source (e.g., farmers, hunters, healers). In collective from more than one method family were grouped into
valuation processes, all community members participate the integrated valuation family. In many cases, it was not
as experts to provide and collectively assess information possible to identify a concrete method per se. However,
about values. descriptions of the conditions around the practice were
Table 3 9 Applying the methods families framework to the practice of valuation in IPLC
contexts.
Valuation What The information The general The specific Additional

method is used to detect, approach used way that values practices or
Family assessed? characterize or to obtain and are gathered processes that
assign value (value assess information and processed may accompany
indicators) (valuation (valuation valuation
approach) methods) process
• Ecosystem health • Species presence • Territory Patrols • Direct observations • Ceremonies

• Land use change & and absence data • Forest walks of nature • Occurring
its impacts • Behaviours of • Ecosystem • Counts of simultaneously
• Ecosystem capacity plants and animals monitoring components of with planning
to provide natures • Location and • Ad hoc reporting nature • Everyday
Nature-based valuation
contributions to movements of by community • Discussions among practices such as

people species, people members of nature- experts (indirect fishing, hunting,
• Weather (present and • Amount or quality related information information about farming, talking,
future) or resource • Can be collectively nature) fetching water,
• Quality and amount • Hunting success or led, expert-led • Reading the skies building
of resource failure (specialized & land • Protection of
• Preparedness of • Changes over time members) or • Tasting, touching, territory and
nature for specific and space cohort-led (e.g. listening to nature resources
activities (planting, • Inter- and intra- by women, youth, • Mapping (including • Affirming rights
harvesting, migrating) species interaction elders) mental maps) and autonomy
• Threats and risks to • Location of sacred
Nature spaces and features
• Strength or • Feelings that • Group discussions • Dialogues • Ceremonies

weakness of relations people express • Community • Deliberation • Rituals
with nature through statements, assemblies • Interviews • Planning
song, poems,
Statement-based valuation
• Sustainability of • Interviews • Mapping • Decision-making

human-nature stories or dance
• Rituals to • Interpretation of • Conflict
relations (harmony • Natural phenomena gauge people’s nature’s signs (what resolution
between humans- • Other Signs from connection with Nature has stated) • Teaching
nature) Nature in including nature • Interpretation of • Community
• Attitudes towards dreams that people • Prayers to gauge stories, dance and strengthening
nature and others describe nature’s connection song (what people processess
• Nature’s relations to people have stated)
with people
• Interpretation of
• Threats and risks to dreams (what
harmony with nature nature has stated to
• Existence as People people)
181
Table 3 9
Valuation What The information The general The specific Additional

method is used to detect, approach used way that values practices or
Family assessed? characterize or to obtain and are gathered processes that
assign value (value assess information and processed may accompany
indicators) (valuation (valuation valuation
approach) methods) process
• Strength or • What is consumed • Expert-led • Observation of • Communal

weakness of relations or appreciated assessments people and their assessments
with nature about nature by specialized behaviours in of community
• Sustainability of • Whether rules individuals everyday practices harmony with
human-nature and principles are • Communal and special nature
Behaviour-based valuation
relations (harmony adhered to assemblies to occasions • Conflict

between humans- • How goods and collectively interpret • Interpretation of resolution
nature) services are traded behaviours intentions based on processes
• Attitudes towards • Hunting or crop what people do (or • Evaluation and
nature and others failure or success do not do) modification of
• Nature’s relations (nature’s behaviour) • Characterization Life Plans
with people • What people do in of human-nature • Land use
• Threats and risks to the landscape relations based on planning
harmony with nature individual or group • Ceremony
• Changes in
behaviours and convivial
traditions and
practices celebration
• Communal
cohesion building
processes
• Knowledge • Specificities in the • Collective process • Construction • Empowerment

and knowledge stories to discuss and and sharing of processes
transmission • Community deliberate worldviews • Protection of
Integrated valuation
• Existence as a behaviours and • Ceremonies to • Interpretation of Territory

People actions develop and stories of creation • Enactment of
• The meaning and • Impacts on nature transmit knowledge • Retelling of stories Rights to self-
reason for Life and the collective • Rituals to affirm of origin termination and
• Threats to the identity and sense • A combination autonomy
existence of the of place of processes • Conflict
collective embedded within resolution
• Opportunities for one or several
extending existence ceremonial
of the collective procedures
used to identify the source of information used for the approaches do not operate with a single purpose such as to
valuation and to assign a method family. Table 3.9 collect information to support decision-making processes.
summarises how descriptions provided by ILK experts were Even when these practices are conducive towards decision-
used to identify a method or approach and assign them to making settings, valuation and the decision process are
methods families. While this might facilitate western science not separated events; rather they are interrelated. Many
understanding of IPLC valuation and make IPLC practices practices and approaches are part of renewing relations
more conceptually available to readers, it grossly over- with nature through the performing of, for example, seasonal
simplifies, omits, and most likely misrepresents the meaning water and food rituals and honouring landforms, plants,
and significance of the practices described. and animals. Some of the practices entail interpreting
specific indicators emerging from nature to secure food
and water for their own sustenance and the broader
Valuation as tradition, ceremony and practice: an
community; healing practices focused on the collective,
IPLC perspective
family or community well-being; or consulting with deities
IPLC’s ways of life and their multiple human-nature and to interpret their ancestral laws and elicit teachings to guide
spiritual interactions with land and sea does not lend itself collective actions.
to delineated methods that are separate from daily and
ceremonial life. Observed practices or procedures that The fundamental limitation of applying the methods family
might resemble methods associated with nature-based, approach to IPLC valuation is that it cannot fully capture and
statement-based or behaviour-based valuation can be risks misrepresenting the interconnectedness of indigenous
an integral part of IPLC’s ways of life intricately linked to worldviews and their valuation practices. To illustrate,
their biocultural context. In this sense, these practices and western scientific epistemology tends to place nature as an
182
external object of assessment rather than as a living being science approaches to understand IPLC valuation can
that people renovate relations of respect and reciprocity omit that human-nature communication is often codified in
with. As an external object, methods are applied to nature signals or actions known by the community that might be
with the specific purpose to value and assess natural imperceptible to an outsider (IPBES, 2019c). Moreover, in
resources and ecosystems services to humans. In contrast, many IPLC contexts direct comparisons between IPLC and
many IPLC worldviews place humanity as an inseparable non-IPLC methods (such as equating talking circles to group
part of nature and subsequently, deploy a multidimensional discussions) can be inappropriate. For example, the place
and intimate relationship with nature that involves cultural selected to discuss might be suitable for the intervention
identity and a sense of belonging, and collective well-being of deities who transmit messages or mandates, which may
(Huambachano, 2018; Nemogá, 2019). Methods, as such, lack importance in non-IPLC contexts. The inclusion and
become impossible to extract from the practices, traditions specific role of other non-humans and non-material entities
and rituals that are carried out daily as part of the integral is key in IPLC valuation; but this easily escapes (and can be
connections to the land and seascapes in IPLC’s ways of considered unacceptable) to those who are alien to an IPLC
life. Insisting that these practices are additional processes worldview and epistemology.
accompanying valuation is misleading.
Limitations of applying the Methods Families to
For example, classifying IPLC procedures for determining
IPLC valuation practice
physical or ecological characteristics of natural components
such as soil quality or plant abundance as nature-based IPLC practices and approaches can be characterised as
valuation methods, or interpreting processes of people holistic, bringing together diverse values, including those
expressing views about nature in collective gatherings and contributed by non-human and non-material agents.
people singing or interacting through ancestral narratives Not recognizing this integrity and holistic feature of
as statement-based methods omits that in IPLC contexts, IPLC approaches and practices limits the much-needed
to speak, to listen, and/or to act upon Mother Earth would participation of IPLC in exercises of valuation of nature.
require to do so in accordance with ancestral law, values, Although the methods family approach is instrumental in
and protocols that are localised and are not perceptible identifying IPLC practices and procedures that resemble
to non-community members. Applying a strictly western non-IPLC methods it presents IPLC valuation practice
Statement-based
valuation
Interviews
Ceremony
Remote
sensing

Nature-based

valuation
Interactions
with spirits
Integrated
valuation Behaviour-based
Observing
valuation
people
Figure 3 28 On the left: Visual representation of how the methods families (statement-
based, nature-based, behaviour-based, and integrated) act as a selective lens
to make only isolated elements of IPLC valuation visible to the IPBES audience.
The structure of the web itself and each node (circle) together represent a simplified example of an IPLC worldview in which
valuation takes place as a multi-faceted and on-going process. On the right: Three examples (interviews, remote sensing, and
observing people) of how the method families accesses or represents elements of IPLC valuation. Two examples of integral
elements of IPLC valuation not accessed or represented by method families are ceremony and interactions with spirits. The
spirituality core of the IPLC worldview is central in the figure and cannot be removed without dismantling the integrity of the rest
of the web. Figure adapted from Casimirri, 2003.
183
out of contexts; core cultural and spiritual beliefs and 3.3.1 Relevance of the valuation
practices of IPLC run the risk of being excluded from
valuation of nature exercises (Figure 3.28). Bringing The section has three components, the first considers
together non-indigenous valuation methods and indigenous how different goals for valuation also render different types
practices and approaches requires acknowledging diverse of valuation relevant. The second aims to bring evidence
worldviews on equal footing. If IPLC are going to engage together on how valuation has included different forms
in valuation of nature exercises, co-valuation will be a of knowledge systems and worldviews and in particular
respectful way to go. Co-valuation of nature, rather than indigenous peoples and local communities’ principles
integration, promotes a suitable space for bringing together in valuation. The final section provides the evidence on
multiple value dimensions and worldviews if grounded how plural valuations aim to bring the different types of
on meaningful and respectful complementarity (Šunde et values together into a common framework or support
al., 2018). for decision-making.
The methods families are limited in their ability to 3.3.1.1 Counting what counts: societal
acknowledge and characterise IPLC practices and
goals of valuation
procedures and how they operate within their everyday
life or ceremonial relations to the land. Figure 3.28 shows Valuation seeks to support decision-making by addressing
that simply filtering IPLC procedures and practices through overarching societal goals. We group societal goals into
the method family’s framework does not reflect IPLC four main goals to evaluate the extent to which valuation
perceptions and their relationships to nature. Consequently, applications provide evidence to inform decisions about
only the components of IPLC valuation methods that fit the consequences of interventions to human well-being,
through the methods family filter, such as elements of ecological sustainability and justice, as well as a more
nature-based, statement-based, behaviour-based, and holistic integrated goal, based on IPLC worldviews. Enabling
integrated methods that are recognizable by the western decision-making to improve human well-being is a key
perspective, will come through and be represented. Similar intended goal that valuation seeks to achieve (e.g., Guerry
to what Casimirri (2003) stated regarding the integration et al., 2015; Keeler et al., 2012; Kenter, 2016; Rendón et al.,
of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in resource 2019). Different valuation approaches use different concepts
management: if practices and procedures of IPLC are to measure human well-being, including quantitative and
used only to provide data to enrich a western valuation qualitative indicators (Bernues et al., 2014; Busch et al.,
method, even if it is interdisciplinary, it will not represent the 2012; Walz et al., 2016).
values, neither it will serve the needs of the providers of
that information. The concept of human well-being is used as an equivalent to
a “good quality of life” at individual, household or community
level in line with the IPBES conceptual framework (Díaz et
al., 2015). Empirical studies may use several measures of
3.3 KEY CONSIDERATIONS well-being (Dawson & Martin, 2015). Applications often
assess one or more of the diverse items that are considered
IN VALUATION important for a good quality of life, e.g., health (mental and
physical), food, education, living standards (such as housing
This section outlines key considerations in the choice conditions, ownership of assets, access to drinking water
between alternative valuation processes to support and electricity, etc.). Sometimes these are combined into
decision-making. We outline three considerations that composite indicators of well-being (McGillivray & Noorbakhsh,
together can guide valuation choices: 1) relevance, 2) 2007). Other valuation applications assess subjective well-
robustness and 3) resources. The relevance criterion seeks being defined as ‘fulfilling one’s virtuous potentials and living
to draw out key considerations related to how application as one was inherently intended to live’ (life satisfaction,
of valuation methods and approaches can make different happiness, optimism about one’s future etc.) (Diener et al.,
types of values visible for decision-making in diverse 2002). Economic valuation methods tend to be based on the
contexts. The relevant methods and approaches are those theory of utilitarianism and assess changes in utility as a result
that provide information on the values that matters for a of a change in nature or biodiversity (Tinch et al., 2019). Other
given decision-making situation. The robustness criterion studies do not measure well-being directly, but use livelihoods
includes how methods can generate reliable information and as a measure and assess the dependence on land and
fairly represent values of a broad range of stakeholders. The natural resources as an indicator of how human well-being
resource criterion relates to the resource needs involved depends on nature (Gobster, 1999).
in the application of valuation methods and approaches
in terms time, financial resources, data availability, human Valuation also seeks to inform decision-making about the
resources, and technical capacities. impact of changes in nature by measuring preferences or
184
importance assigned to (changes in) nature and biodiversity service potential, stocks, ecosystem service supply,
protection or utilisation. Valuations use different well-being flow, delivery, use, nature’s contributions to people,
indicators in this type of valuation such as willingness to viable populations of “useful” species (habitat suitability),
give up access to land or other resources to protect nature biodiversity (related to a human use, functional
(Lliso et al., 2020) or willingness to pay to protect nature biodiversity), quantity or quality of natural resources
or improve ecosystem services (Meyerhoff et al., 2009), (related to a human use), etc.
while others are rankings of relative importance of aspects
of nature and biodiversity (Martín-López et al., 2012) Sustainable use and management of ecosystems
or qualitative indicators of importance linked to nature, both require combining aspects of ecosystem condition
biodiversity and well-being (Durie, 2001; Harmsworth et al., with aspects of ecosystem capacity, including an aspect
2011; Huambachano, 2018). Finally, costs associated with of impact of management or use on this condition. These
protecting nature and biodiversity or maintaining nature’s concepts however differ. Sustainable use implies meeting
contributions to people, of either past or future projects are human needs without compromising the health of
used as (second-best) approximations of how important ecosystems (Callicott & Mumford, 1998; United Nations,
and valuable nature and biodiversity are to people (e.g., 1987); whereas sustainable ecosystem management
Marre & Billé, 2019; Schleiniger, 1999; Schröter et al., 2014) is about restoration and maintenance of the ecological
(see 3.2.2.3). structure and function of ecosystems and preservation
and enhancement of the health and diversity of species
Providing information to achieve a higher level of ecological and ecological communities (Gobster, 1994; Harmsworth
quality is also an important focus of valuation (see 3.2.2.1). et al., 2011). Related concepts include ecological
Valuation can be aimed at assessing whether the use thresholds, boundaries, tipping points, maximum
or management of nature and nature’s contributions to sustainable yield or harvest, carrying capacity for human
people is done sustainably regarding the carrying capacity use, restoration, conservation effectiveness, etc.
of the ecosystem considered (Gobster, 1994). Ecological
sustainability here refers to the capacity of an ecosystem to Justice as an objective in environmental policy can be
support the ecological processes required to deliver nature’s considered in valuation either in terms of fair distribution
contributions to people for present and future generations of benefits or burdens of policies (distributional justice). It
(Costanza, 1999; Opdam et al., 2006). Three sub-criteria is in this meaning that we consider justice in this section.
were selected to give insight on how valuation applications Just valuation is also important in terms of how to achieve
provide information about ecological sustainability: more fair valuation processes (procedural justice). How
valuation considers recognition of different value systems
Ecosystem condition refers to (aspects of) the (recognitional justice) is the topic of Section 3.3.1.2.
ecosystem of the natural world regardless of their
use, services for or contributions to humans. Although Distributive justice concerns the fair distribution of costs
this includes conservation-related biodiversity values or losses and benefits or gains, i.e. the outcomes of policies
or ecosystem regulation studies from biocentric or (McDermott et al., 2013). The evaluation assessed whether
ecocentric perspectives, which relate to humans, such applications provided evidence of intragenerational
applications are still about how the ecosystem itself justice, i.e., the distribution of ecosystem services/ nature’s
is doing. Related concepts include ecosystem health, contributions to people wealth and resources (gains and
healthy functioning of ecological processes, resilience losses) within one generation, and intergenerational
of ecosystems, response to perturbation, naturalness, justice, i.e., the distribution of ecosystem services/nature’s
biodiversity (not related to human use), threatened contributions to people wealth and resources (gains and
species, extinction risk, degradation, impacts of drivers losses) across generations. In the review of applications,
on the ecosystem, etc. Measuring ecosystem condition is information was collected about how distributive justice
considered an essential component of any assessment of was assessed, for example through disaggregation
the ecological impact of use or management. (across generations or stakeholder groups), inequality
indices, or perceptions of distributive justice and needs of
Ecosystem capacity refers to the potential or actual future generations.
delivery of ecosystem services/ contributions to people
(Opdam et al., 2006). It also includes biodiversity From the systematic review it is clear the ecological quality
studies which refer to human utility, e.g., biodiversity in terms of its importance both in itself and to contribute
assessment of rainforest patches for pharmaceutical to people is by far the most prominent goal that valuation
exploration, or biodiversity of grassland species related seeks to inform (Figure 3.29). Assessing human well-being
to nutritious value for cattle. It does not include studies more directly is the primary goal of approximately one third
of just the benefits to people without assessing the of valuations, whereas evidence on the assessment of
ecosystem. Related concepts include ecosystem distributional justice is relatively scarce (Figure 3.30).
185
Sustainable use
(19%)
Ecosystem
condition
Ecosystem capacity (47%)
(34%)
Ecological quality
(65%)
Costs made to
protect nature Wellbeing Justice
(18%) (31%) (4%)
Inter-generational Intra-generational
Wellbeing justice justice
indicators (50%) (50%)
Preferences (53%)
assigned to nature
(29%)
Figure 3 29 The stated goals of valuation and the approaches to target these (systematic
in-depth review n=1163).
Note that goals often overlap, and that this abundance is based on the valuator’s interpretation on what is assessed.
100%
75%
Inter-generational justice
50%
Intra-generational justice
Sustainable use
Ecosystem capacity
Ecosystem condition 25%
Costs made to protect nature

Preferences assigned to nature
Wellbeing indicators 0%
at d
at d
at d
at d
lu se
lu se
lu se
lu ate
n
n
va -ba
va t-ba
va r-ba
io
io
io
io
va egr
e
t
en
ou
ur
In
m
at
vi
ha
e
N
at
Be
St
Figure 3 30 The stated goals of valuation and the approaches to target these (systematic
in-depth review n=1163) associated to methods families.
Note that goals often overlap, and that this abundance is based on the valuator’s interpretation on what is assessed.
186
The review shows that the goal of the valuations relying environmental benefits over time out of intergenerational
on nature-based valuation methods is largely to assess equity concerns (Spyce et al., 2012). Another approach is
ecosystem capacity and condition as well as sustainable use to ask respondents in questionnaires how likely they are
but that they also often report on wellbeing indicators as part to contribute to fairer allocations, for instance by buying
of the study (Figure 3.30). Valuations using statement-based organic products with different profit distributions in the
and behaviour-based methods as the main approach to value chain (Chang & Lusk, 2009). These valuations
elicit values predominantly aim to assess wellbeing through regularly find that people opt for some level of fairness in
wellbeing indicators, preferences and costs to articulate distribution, but according to different principles: sometimes
values of nature. However, these methods also often have by allocating across a larger group, sometimes by allocating
an explicit goal to improve biophysical properties of nature funds to those who need it most, to those who are least
(Figure 3.30). Integrated valuation to a larger extent has a responsible for the environmental problem at hand or
mix of expressed intended goals of the valuation. contribute most to better outcomes. However, the number
of studies that focus on environmental valuations is small
Valuations explicitly assessing distributional justice are and many valuations fail to consider distributive justice
less abundant in the literature than valuations assessing (Garmendia & Pascual, 2013). An important knowledge
other societal goals (see above). However, the evidence of gap for sustainability-aligned policies is the lack of empirical
the importance that people place on fairness as a broad studies that assess how different users/stakeholders value
value underpinning specific values of nature is important different gains and losses in seeking a fair allocation in
for assessment of the capacity of methods reviewed in progress towards their multiple and sometimes conflicting
Section 3.2. It is well evidenced that lower distributional objectives (Forsyth & Sikor, 2013).
fairness is associated with, for example, lower social
welfare and negative health effects (Wilkinson & Pickett, Another set of experimental studies using games, where
2009). Additionally, it has also been well demonstrated that participants are asked to share resources with others, has
people have preferences for more equitable outcomes and extensively shown that moral norms and fairness concerns
do regard the welfare of others in their preferences and affect people’s distributive behaviour (Andreoni & Bernheim,
behaviour (Gsottbauer & van den Bergh, 2011; Johansson- 2009; Cappelen et al., 2007; Dreber et al., 2013; List, 2007),
Stenman & Konow, 2010; Konow, 2010; Nyborg, 2000). and that people are averse to inequity (Fehr & Schmidt,
There are different methodologies available in valuation to 1999). However, while these preferences are well evidenced
assess how people value fairness, in terms of the distribution in lab and field settings, such evidence in the context of
of benefits, resources, opportunities, or rights. This holds for valuations of ecosystem services/ nature-based solutions
both intergenerational and intra-generational distribution. is sparse.
Ex-ante studies aim to understand such social preferences, Furthermore, ex-post studies assess the distribution of gains
including altruism and distributional preferences. It is and losses across stakeholders by disaggregating findings
well established that participants in statement-based across these groups, such as the gains of protected areas
methods, including choice experiments and contingent for tourists against the losses of local communities in access
valuation studies, are willing to pay to protect biodiversity to resources and spiritual places (van Beukering et al., 2003).
and conserve nature for future generations (such values Other studies focus on the gains and losses along the value
are sometimes labelled ‘bequest values’) and for current chain (Ribot, 1998). Again, while it is widely acknowledged
generations living in other locations to enjoy even if they that such disaggregation is important for sustainable
cannot enjoy these themselves (altruistic non-use values) solutions, the evidence base of studies that do so is small.
(Nobel et al., 2020; Oleson et al., 2015; Subroy et al., 2019).
3.3.1.2 Recognition of diverse knowledges
In other valuations using statement-based methods (focus
and worldviews
groups, questionnaires, choice experiments), stakeholders
are directly asked about their preferred distributional rules, In socio-environmental justice, recognition consists of:
such as who should get the highest payments in payment 1) acknowledging the existence of other ways of life,
for ecosystem services schemes (Martin et al., 2014); different ways of knowing, and different ways of generating
whether to ask higher payments from richer citizens to knowledge, and 2) respecting those differences (Schlosberg,
support poorer citizens (Rodríguez & León, 2004); how to 2007). For this assessment, valuation practices were
allocate agricultural subsidies across farmers (Rocamora- assessed for the extent to which they acknowledge and
Montiel et al., 2014); or how to distribute climate change respect different ways of knowing and valuing nature and
mitigation efforts (Carlsson et al., 2011, 2013) or payments recognizing the different worldviews that underpin variations
for air quality improvement and carbon taxing (Dietz & in knowledge systems. Recognition was used to assess
Atkinson, 2021) across different countries. This approach is whether valuations reproduce the societal structures that
also used to assess how people would prefer to distribute contribute to social injustices in the form of lack of respect,
187
discrimination, and domination across social fault-lines such hence most of the knowledge that informs valuation originates
as gender, sexuality, and ethnicity (Martin et al., 2015). from academia, albeit from different disciplines (see 3.2.1).
Almost 30% of valuations rely, incorporate, or – at the very
least – acknowledge knowledge other than that from academia
Consideration of diverse knowledge systems
such as, lay and experiential knowledge, indigenous and
in valuation
local knowledge, technical knowledge (excluding academic)
Most valuations that are published in scholarly outlets are and policy knowledge (i.e., knowledge that generated and
conducted by academics or researchers including students, maintained in the policy domain) (Figure 3.31).
Lay and experiential knowledge, held by

consumers citizens, general public
(8.1%)
Other
(2.2%)
Indigenous local knowledge, held by
members or representatives of Indigenous
Peoples and Local Communities
(8.9%)
Scientific knowledge or academic expertise,

held by academics or researchers
The application does not explicitly mention (11.7%)
(types of) knowledge
(58.6%)
Technical knowledge, held by people in

relevant professions (excl. academics)
(6.6%)
Policy knowledge, held by policy makers

(excl. academics)
(3.9%)
Figure 3 31 Proportion of valuation studies that mention reply of different types of

knowledge (n = 1163).
Care for the land

(4%)
Respect towards nature
(3%) Kinship / communality with other people
(2%)
Kinship / communality with non-human entities

(1%)
None Self-determination and ancestral law

(87%) (3%)
Figure 3 32 Proportion of valuation studies that mention key IPLC principles guiding their
relations with each other and with nature (n=1163).
188
Valuations that interact directly with knowledge holders low explicit recognition of other knowledge systems risks
from extra-academic domains invariably recognise other perpetuating existing dominance of academic knowledge.
knowledge systems, at least implicitly if not explicitly.
Specifically, participatory valuation approaches depart Approximately 41% of reported valuations were explicit
from the notion that the knowledge and experiences of about the types of knowledge that informed their studies.
others is valuable to the valuation exercise. Nonetheless, In the case of indigenous and local knowledge and the
knowledge systems that inform valuation are not explicitly knowledge of other marginalised groups, 8.9% of the
acknowledged in reports or given equal importance. The studies referred to ILK, and this is even though only
Generally demonstrating and Assessing overall protection and Assessing equitable sharing and
expressing deep respect to the preservation of sites for their sacred use of resources
land, sea, or their natural meaning, or cultural or historical
surroundings; manifestation of significance.
spiritual concern to the land, etc. Considering the satisfaction of
Assessing whether actions/practices are community members’ needs,
compatible with and follow ancestral particularly women, elders and
Identifying place-based teachings about living in harmony with children.
community ceremonies, rituals nature and respect for the land.
or gatherings linked to the
Assessing whether the
landscape. Identifying non-over exploitative
community shares teachings
production systems out of a sense
and knowledge on how to
of responsibility towards future
live sustainably with all
generations
Respecting those elements of nature.
ceremonies, rituals or
gatherings. Considering actions /
practices to renew the Assessing the
15% 15% sense of interconnection 15% community internal
with the surroundings and practices of reciprocity
promote awarenes about and equitable trade with
responsibility and care. other communities.
10% 10% 10%
Other. Other. Other.
5% 5% 5%
0% 0% 0%
RESPECT TOWARDS CARE FOR THE LAND KINSHIP / COMMUNALITY
NATURE WITH OTHER PEOPLE
Identifying and assessing kinship Assessing the application of ancestral

relationships with animals law, teachings, customs, and uses.
Assessing the acknowledgement and inclusion of

Identifying sacred plants people’s beliefs, spirituality and ceremonial practices
Assessing the community governance and

Assessing reluctance and
community protocols or regulations
discouragement of using
plants, animals, mountains,
rivers and non-living entities Assessing the implementation of FPIC
for individualistic gains
Accounting for the intervention of
indigenous spiritual authorities and use
15% Assessing the understanding 15% of indigenous language.
of landforms as entitled to
personhood or legal rights Including the indigenous authors’
self-positioning or elders and
10% 10% knowledge-keepers authorship
Other. Other.
5% 5%
0% 0%
KINSHIP / COMMUNALITY SELF-DETERMINATION AND
WITH NON-HUMAN ENTITIES ANCESTRAL LAW
Figure 3 33 Recognition of broad principles across all valuations (n=1163).

The levels indicate the proportion of valuations that assessed or identified elements of five principles that guide IPLC’s relations to
nature. Note that these also include the valuations not related to IPLC territories or communities.
189
Emerging methodologies to address low

2% of the studies had been conducted in the territories
recognition of other knowledge systems
of indigenous peoples and local communities. Lastly,
8.1% of the studies referred to lay and experiential Indigenous scholars and scholars from other marginalised
knowledge, such as that which is generated and held by groups are developing new and hybrid research
consumers, citizens, or more broadly, the “general public” methodologies that build on their philosophies and
(Figure 3.31). knowledge systems and follow their own processes
of validation. This growing field offers opportunities for
indigenous and other scholars to develop valuation methods
Consideration of indigenous people and local
that are better suited for IPLC contexts and which respect
communities’ principles in valuations
and promote their culture, traditions and values. There is
Reciprocity, generosity, altruism, kinship, self-determination, a small but growing body of indigenous scholarship that
and self-governance are key guiding principles in many is raising awareness to the broader scientific community
Indigenous Peoples’ way of life. Valuation studies were in understanding indigenous cosmovision/worldview (see
assessed to determine the extent to which all or some examples in Annex 3.12).
of these principles are acknowledged in the work that is
reported. Only 13% of the studies mentioned at least one 3.3.1.3 Plurality in valuation
of the principles; principles associated with respect towards
nature, care for the land, and self-determination and
Plural valuations elicit and integrate diverse values
ancestral law were the most common (Figure 3.32). Not
all studies where the principles occurred were necessarily Many valuation applications aim to make diverse values
conducted in the IPLC territory or communities, suggesting explicit in a joint valuation process. Value diversity is
that some of the principles (particularly care for the land and fully embodied within the IPBES conceptual framework
respect towards nature) guide other non-IPLC societies. (Díaz et al., 2015) where three main value dimensions
The principles of stewardship, altruism, and guardianship are considered: (1) values directly linked to nature itself
have been used to explain caring behaviours towards nature (including biodiversity and ecosystem structure and
in non-IPLC societies such as recycling, volunteerism and functioning); (2) values derived from nature’s contributions
giving to donations (Figure 3.33). to people (including ecosystem services) (Pascual et al.,
0.4% 100%
1.7% 0.2%
8%
75%
50%
89.7%
25%
0%
at d
at d
at d
at d
lu se
lu se
lu se
lu ate
n
n
va -ba
va t-ba
va r-ba
io
io
io
io
va egr
e
t
en
ou
ur
In
m
at
vi
ha
te
N
Be
St
Very high Medium Very low

High Low
Figure 3 34 Level of broad plurality of valuations (n=1163, right: relative per method family).
The levels indicate the number of life value frames, Total Economic Value main categories and IPBES value dimensions. Very low:
valuation considered from the perspective of a single life value frame, Total Economic Value category and value dimension. Very
high: three or more value frames, Total Economic Value main categories and IPBES dimensions are considered.
190
1.0% 100%
3.2% 0.3%
17.7%
75%
50%
77.8%
25%
0%
at d
at d
at d
at d
lu se
lu se
lu se
lu ate
n
n
va -ba
va t-ba
va r-ba
io
io
io
io
va egr
e
t
en
u
ur
In
io
em
at
av
N
h
at
Be
St
Very high Medium Very low
High Low
Figure 3 35 Level of specific plurality of valuations (n=1163, right: relative per method family).
The levels indicate the number of value targets considered in the valuation. Very low: valuation targets less than 5 components
of biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people types and aspects of quality of life. Very high: valuation targets at least 25
components of biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people types and aspects of quality of life.
100%
0.4% 11.5%
2.4%
0.8%
4.2% 75%
56.2% 50%
17.4%
25%
7.2%
0%
at d
at d
at d
at d
lu se
lu se
lu se
lu ate
n
n
va -ba
va t-ba
va r-ba
io
io
io
io
va egr
e
t
en
ou
ur
In
m
at
vi
ha
te
N
Be
St
Does not bring different values Keep separate bundles Sum with weights defined by
together researchers
Keep separate values as a basis
Unclear / other for deliberation Sum by converting all values to
a common unit
Sum with weights inferred from Sum with weights based on
participant rankings deliberation
Figure 3 36 Ways in which valuations have combined different value types (n=1163, right:
relative per method family).
191
2017) ;and (3) values more directly linked to good quality Our review recorded if and how applications bring diverse
of life (see 3.3.1.1). In the values assessment, the value values together. In practice, 56% of valuations do not bring
typology is further broadened, detailed and developed (see different values together. 17.4% of plural valuations consider
Chapter 2). An important distinction is made between broad diverse values as comparable and sum them in a single
and specific values. Broad values refer to the underlying summed unit. 7% applies some weighting between value
perspectives, worldviews and life value frames which types assumed to be compatible, and 12% keeps value
underpin a potential valuation. A valuation which considers types separate or in bundles to inform decision-making
several of these broad values (e.g., considering economic (Figure 3.36).
considerations and IPLC perspectives in the study), is a
plural valuation in the broad sense (Figure 3.34). Specific Deliberation has also been suggested as a useful process
values are for instance as components of biodiversity, types in valuation where decisions involve multiple value types:
of nature’s contributions to people and indicators of quality it is seen as a legitimate approach to bringing diverse
of life (see IPBES, 2018). A valuation which considers values together in a joint decision process to arrive at
several specific values has a high specific plurality (Figure a consensual decision (Raymond et al., 2014; Vatn et
3.35). Most valuations account for some degree of plurality, al., 2011). Incommensurability debates have also had
but only a minority of valuation can be considered highly implications for the technical tools proposed to evaluate
plural, either in a broad or specific sense. 75% of the 1163 policy proposals. In particular, multi-criteria-based valuation
in-depth reviewed valuation studies focus on more than methodologies have been advocated to enable some
one type of value related to different aspects of nature, its relaxation of the assumption that value commensurability
contributions to people and a good quality of life yet, only underpins conventional valuation approaches (Munda,
10% address more than one life frame of nature’s values 2004; Spash, 2008). Furthermore, multi-criteria methods
(i.e., living from, with, in and as nature). Figures above have been more applicable in a wide range of situations
depict the abundance of valuations over aggregated levels where economic estimates have not been available
of plurality for specific (Figure 3.34) and broad (Figure and infeasible/impossible to estimate for many of the
3.35) aspects. relevant impacts.
Complex & Plural
Decision
NO PLURAL VALUATION
VALUATION METHODS AND PROCESSES
NECESSARY
Decision
-
Combined
Decision
VALUATION
OPERATING
-
SPACE
Simple
Decision
DECISION RISK
INCOMPLETE OR
-
BIASED VALUATION
Decision
No
Very Low Low Medium High Very High
CONTEXT COMPLEXITY
Figure 3 37 The valuation operating space: valuation methods and processes from
‘none’ to ‘plural’ as a trade-off between decision risk and resources spent on
unnecessary valuation.
192
Plural valuation in practice

reliable information is may also hinder the use of valuation
Some single valuation methods can identify diverse values to in decision-making.
some degree, yet specific methods exist to elicit use, non-use
and option values, various contributions of nature, aspects In particular, the evolution of statement-based valuation
of biodiversity and quality of life; but also, broad values has focused on improving methods to generate more
related to life frames of nature’s values, dimensions such as reliable valuation outcomes mainly by improving elicitation
instrumental, intrinsic and relational, and IPLC principles. procedures (see 3.3.2.2, 3.2.2.2). This has resulted in widely
available best practice guidelines for use in decision-making
Capturing a richer diversity of values in valuation can thus procedures. Other methodological developments have
be achieved by combining several complementary methods. focused on improving robustness in terms of inclusion of
The use of multiple methods requires careful consideration, stakeholders and procedural justice which has contributed
since their underlying assumption and disciplinary origin to the development of more participatory and deliberative
can make some methods incompatible with one another. methods (see 3.3.2.2). Given that both insufficient reliability of
Despite the wide range of methods available, most information and poorly described procedures for stakeholder
valuations only apply one main method, and combinations involvement can hinder use of valuation in decision-making,
mostly have methods from the same discipline. 77% of the efforts are needed to develop methods and best practices
valuation studies use one main method or a combination for improving both dimensions of robustness simultaneously.
of approaches within the same method family. On the other
hand, many ‘additional methods’ are applied to broaden the 3.3.2.1 Reliability in valuation
scope of a main method. While these are not standalone
methods and often embedded in the protocols of the main It is relevant to know how reliable and valid the evidence
method, they complement the main method to achieve produced by different valuation methods/approaches is.
a certain degree of plurality. Examples are the use of a The stronger the evidence, the more useful it may be for
biological diversity map alongside observations of recreation informing decision-making. The evaluation here recognised
patterns, or the deliberative process applied to design a that different reliability and validity criteria exist for different
population-wide survey. In practice, consulting experts types of methods and approaches and that they differ
from different disciplinary backgrounds can help select across disciplines.
the appropriate method mix to produce results which are
relevant to the decision at stake. This topic has three criteria in the assessment: reliability and
internal and external validity (Bishop & Boyle, 2017; Drost,
Mixed method approaches however are demanding 2011; Golafshani, 2003). Given the limited available testing
regarding skills, resources and time. The choice to increase in valuation applications of reliability and validity (Lautenbach
investment in the valuation process depends on the et al., 2015; Rakotonarivo et al., 2016), the evaluation
complexity and stakes of the valuation context: high stakes asks whether applications assessed different forms/tests
and high complexity justify investing in a more complex and of reliability and validity, but not whether the results are
demanding valuation. The operating space for valuation deemed reliable or valid.
is determined by risk and parsimony (Figure 3.37).
Underinvestment in valuation risks to misinform decisions Reliability (sometimes called dependability in qualitative
and produce adverse effects. Parsimony on the other hand studies) refers to the quality of valuation measurements
advises against using more resources and time than justified (Franklin et al., 2010; Rakotonarivo et al., 2016;
by the benefits or losses at stake. Note that for choices of Schwandt et al., 2007). This is often evaluated by
low complexity and stakes, no explicit valuation might be the consistency of measures and degree to which a
needed at all, and for medium complexity and stake, often a valuation method/instrument provides similar outcomes
simple valuation might suffice. each time it is used under the same conditions with
the same respondents/participants. Three forms of
reliability were included in the evaluation: replicability,
3.3.2 Robustness of valuation consistency and precision. Replicability or repeatability
of results can be established through test-retest studies,
In valuation, robustness is a multi-dimensional criterion that and inter-rater or inter-observer reliability. Replicability
includes how methods can generate reliable information and was reported in 11% of the reviewed valuations.
fairly represent values of a broad range of stakeholders. The Consistency is about showing that the valuation findings
reviews on valuation methods undertaken in this chapter are maintaining an accepted standard over time, space,
highlight that valuation experts have different perspectives or groups. Consistency was reported in 7% of the
on how to improve the robustness of valuation outcomes. reviewed valuations. Precision is a measure of variation
The different perspectives offer insight to the development among observations. Examples of indicators of precision
of valuation going forward but disagreements about what include how scatter are results, heterogeneity, spread,
193
variance, and standard deviations/errors (accuracy is people. Generalisability, more used in quantitative
considered a different concept than precision). Precision studies, refers to the extent to which the results
was reported in 46% of the reviewed valuations. can be generalised from a sample to a population.
Information on external validity was reported in 19%
• Validity is about the extent to which a valuation of the reviewed valuations.
method accurately measures what it is supposed
to measure and performs as it is designed to
Reliability in IPLC valuation
perform (Rakotonarivo et al., 2016). This can be
split into internal and external validity. Internal The “belief system” or worldview of the evaluator determines
validity refers to the validity of causal implications what they consider as robust methods and robust results
of a valuation study. Sub-criteria used for internal and this varies across valuation purposes. For example, the
validity include credibility, construct validity, content robustness of ILK and IPLC methods and practices is often
validity, criterion validity, and community validity. questioned and undervalued outside the IPLC contexts,
Credibility (as a validity test for qualitative studies) is unless the results match those of scholarly or academic
about the confidence in the “‘truth” of the findings valuation methods (Casimirri, 2003; Chilisa, 2020; Smith,
and can be established in different ways such as by 2012). Concepts of what is evidence (or what counts as
triangulation, prolonged engagement, or member truth) vary across disciplines, across actors, across cultures
checks (test whether results are discussed with the and belief systems (Box 3.5). In the review, the criteria for
study participants). Construct validity (also called reliability in IPLC contexts, has complemented the reliability
theoretical validity) refers to the degree to which a criteria outlined above. These include whether valuation
valuation method/approach assesses/measures experts have the skills (training) and experience (age and
what it intends to measure according to (theoretical) practice) to undertake valuation correctly to produce reliable
constructs or concepts on which those methods are information, whether they are familiar with the teachings
based. For example, willingness-to-pay measures are and traditions of the community, and whether they are
theoretically expected to vary with income. Content trustworthy individuals (character and reputation).
validity refers to the degree to which the method is
designed to measure what it is supposed to measure For valuation to be useful and trustworthy to those
when it performs well. For example, do respondents who rely on the information that it generates and the
understand the questions that the researcher conclusions that it draws, IPLC subject the valuators
wants to ask so that they can provide meaningful and the valuation process to different reliability criteria.
answers? Criterion validity (for quantitative studies) These criteria safeguard the robustness, relevance and
is the comparison of measurements or observations reliability of valuation. A total of 169 excerpts contributed
against a true measure. For example, how do stated to characterising the validation process and standards of
preferences from hypothetical markets compare to valuation28. From these, the following could be discerned:
preferences in real markets (hypothetical bias), or how
do the results of a hydrological model compare to Only information that comes from a validated and
measurements done on the ground (for example of trusted source is useful.
water flows volume). Accuracy is a validity indicator
and is about measuring what the method is aiming Heritage is an important determinant of legitimacy to
to measure (the true value), and some studies do undertake valuation.
an accuracy assessment. Finally, community validity
(which is especially relevant in IPLC contexts) is used Time spent in the community and years of experience
when the outcomes of a valuation approach are (age) are key factors that are considered.
regarded as acceptable evidence if the findings are
adequately shared and approved by the subjects of Inheritance and background can endow some members
the valuation exercise. Information on internal validity specific sets of abilities that allow them to access or
was reported in 48% of the reviewed valuations. retrieve certain types of knowledge, such as that of
seers and healers who can serve as intermediaries
• External validity refers to the ability to generalise the between humans and non-humans
results of the valuation application to other settings.
This is assessed according to two sub-criteria: Information coming from leaders is also trusted.
transferability and generalisability. Transferability, Legitimate leaders usually fulfil many of the other criteria
here defined in a way applicable to qualitative of trust: heritage, inheritance, skills, and age; and
studies, is assessed when an application shows that
the findings have applicability in other contexts or
28. Analysis of contributions on values and valuation methods by ILK experts
settings, i.e., other times, settings, situations, and and holders (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4404612).
194
The character and reputation of those entrusted with values, aiming to influence the decision-making process in
validation is also a key factor. their desired direction (Bennett & Blamey, 2001; Hanley &
Barbier, 2009).
Importantly, the evidence acquired from valuation is
usually subjected to discussions and deliberations with the Another criticism of stated preferences methods, usually
collective or among different members of the community by economists, has been that the decision behaviour of
before it is used to inform decisions (e.g., ‘Valuation of individuals participating in statement preference studies
nature is undertaken based on observation of resources is often found to diverge from the standard neoclassical
followed by a decision agreed by chief and his people. The economic theories underpinning consumer choice
valuation exercise involved the chiefs, community leaders theory and welfare measurement. However, more recent
and land-owning groups’ (Contribution 20)). developments in behavioural and experimental economics
have highlighted that models of economic decision-making
3.3.2.2 Reliability controversy in can be improved to include a broader range of dispositional,
social and cognitive factors (e.g., Dessart et al., 2019).
statement-based valuation
Particularly in relation to biodiversity, individuals may state
The reliability of results from stated preference valuation have high values due to moral or ethical beliefs, for instance,
been under scrutiny and many of the lessons learned from because it makes them feel good to signal a high value,
the debate related to this also provide valuable information or because they find it ethically unacceptable to trade-off
on how to improve other statement-based valuation biodiversity for money (e.g., Blamey et al., 1999; Johansson-
methods (e.g., Rakotonarivo et al., 2016). The debate has Stenman & Svedsäter, 2012; Kahneman & Knetsch, 1992;
mainly been related to the elicitation of non-use values (also Nunes & Schokkaert, 2003). While the former would reflect
often referred to as passive use values). These values refer strategic answers (since they do not actually expect to pay),
to the values that people may assign to nature without any the latter can be considered as a form of protest towards
current or future planned use directly or indirectly. Simply ascribing economic values to biodiversity. Also, it is often
knowing that e.g., some particular species exists may be of found that participants in stated preference surveys are
value to people. Such values have been termed existence apparently willing to pay some specific amount for nature
value and their importance have been acknowledged for protection initiatives, regardless of how much additional
more than half a century (Krutilla, 1967; Weisbrod, 1964). nature protection they are actually evaluating (e.g., Diamond
Another non-use value component is motivated by the desire & Hausman, 1994; Kahneman & Knetsch, 1992; Ojea &
to preserve biodiversity for the sake of other people, either in Loureiro, 2011). While these different types of “anomalous
current or future generations (Loomis, 1988). decision behaviour” are often highlighted in the criticism
of the stated preference methods, and some economists
It is broadly acknowledged that non-use values are likely argue that the values estimated are consequently unsuited
to constitute a significant proportion of the values related for economic analysis (e.g., Hausman, 2012; McFadden
to biodiversity conservation and protection of nature’s & Train, 2017), it is worth noting that such behaviour
contributions to people, e.g., (Hanley & Czajkowski, 2019; actually also sometimes occurs in real life situations (e.g.,
Johansson, 1992; Johnston et al., 2003; Richardson & Czajkowski et al., 2017; Poe, 2016; Smith & Moore, 2010).
Loomis, 2009; Turner et al., 2003). Hence, omitting non-use Hence, it is not a behavioural phenomenon pertaining only
values from valuations to support policy decisions affecting to hypothetical valuation processes. Furthermore, some
nature and biodiversity underestimate the importance that types of personal moral sentiments, for instance, relating to
people attribute to conservation action. self-image and social conformity, may actually be consistent
with economic theory and thus valid drivers of non-use
The use of stated preference methods has increased over values elicited through stated preference methods (Kotchen
the past 30 years, and they are now the most commonly & Reiling, 2000; OECD, 2018).
used economics-informed environmental valuation methods
(Hanley & Czajkowski, 2019). However, the methods have As a result of the controversy, a large research effort has
been subject to a lot of controversy, most of which revolves focused on developing and testing valuation measures
around the hypothetical nature of value elicitation. For and procedures to minimise hypothetical bias and other
instance, it has been shown that people often exaggerate behavioural anomalies, aiming to increase the validity of
their willingness to pay in hypothetical situations compared the value estimates obtained, and make them suited for
to what they are actually willing to pay in real situations economic prioritisation (Hanley & Czajkowski, 2019; Kling
(Harrison & Rutström, 2008; List & Gallet, 2001; Murphy et al., 2012). Based on inputs from a wide range of experts
et al., 2005). This is referred to as “hypothetical bias”. In in the field, current best practice guidance and advice for
the context of stated preference surveys, as well as in conducting stated preference studies is widely and freely
any other methodology relying on people’s statements, available. Of key importance is careful survey construction
people may deliberately overstate or understate their actual with a particular focus on ensuring that value eliciting survey
195
questions as far as possible are incentive compatible to these methods is more abundant for some methods than
survey respondents. This entails that respondents have for others. For example, regarding reliability and validity
incentives to answer questions in line with their actual multiple reviews are available of monetary stated preference
values. Specifically, stated preference surveys should fulfil methods such as willingness to pay (Oerlemans et al.,
three aspects: 1) the described changes are realistic, 2) their 2016), willingness to accept (Whittington et al., 2017),
answers will influence the decision-making process, and 3) choice experiments (Rakotonarivo et al., 2016), contingent
they will have to contribute the amount they have stated (or valuation (Venkatachalam, 2004), and studies regarding
approved) if the policy is implemented. Stated preference the reliability in risk assessment (Hertwig et al., 2019;
surveys that as far as possible meet these state-of-the-art Pasman & Rogers, 2018, 2020; Rogers et al., 2019).
standards have been shown to significantly reduce the risk However, our literature search provided limited evidence
of hypothetical bias, strategic behaviour and other types of for other methods, especially those whose application
seemingly anomalous decision behaviour, and, thus, provide in the context of valuation of biodiversity and nature’s
value estimates that are more reliable for policy support contributions to people is more recent. For example, one
(Carson et al., 2001; Carson & Groves, 2007; Hanley & problem with ranking according to the importance of
Czajkowski, 2019; Johnston et al., 2017; Vossler et al., 2012). nature’s contributions to people is that participants may
rate all nature’s contributions to people as very important.
Despite advances made for the stated preference Such rankings do not help to inform trade-offs for decisions
methods, there is still disagreement in the scientific where not all nature’s contributions to people can be
community concerning the usefulness of these methods provided at the same time and in all policy options (Horne
for measuring environmental non-use values (and also use et al., 2005). The use of rankings is therefore not robust for
values). Many critics maintain that hypothetical bias and decisive decision-making purposes. In general, the degree
seemingly anomalous respondent behaviour inherently of reliability needed (and its associated trade-offs with the
make biodiversity value estimates obtained with stated research cost and effort), is dependent on the decision
preference methods invalid and useless (e.g., Hausman, context (Olander et al., 2017). Thus, soundly grounding the
2012; McFadden & Train, 2017) even if the methods are ecosystem services/nature’s contributions to people science
considered valid in other policy fields. On the other side, into former research from ecological and environmental
proponents of the methods argue that the methodological economics, together with an assessment of the degree of
developments have addressed the most severe points reliability needed by decision-makers, could help mitigating
of criticism. Proponents thus argue that non-use value these challenges. Overall, the reliability and validity of more
estimates obtained through careful implementation of structured methods rely heavily on well-created study
stated preference surveys in line with current best practice designs, including the accuracy of the description of the
guidance will in most cases provide valid inputs on the issue at stake and on individuals being sufficiently informed
welfare economic impacts of relevance for policy guidance to provide robust answers (Ruiz-Frau et al., 2018).
and natural resource damage assessments (e.g., Carson,
2012; Hanley & Czajkowski, 2019; Kling et al., 2012). Since 3.3.2.3 Fair representation
no other methods can assess welfare economic non-use
values, the proponents generally consider that it is better to Fair representation relates both to whose values are
use the stated preference methods and accept that there included in a valuation process but also how the impact on
is some uncertainty associated with the obtained value different people or groups counts when a project or policy is
estimates. The alternative is to risk that non-use values evaluated. The first relates to how representation of values
from nature and biodiversity are left out of the economic are ensured, the second which principles are used to judge
analyses routinely conducted in multiple policy contexts whether a policy decision is favourable or not. While the two
and consequently potentially neglected in decision- considerations are overlapping in practice, we present the
making processes. findings of the assessment in two parts to help distinguish
the different methodological aspects of ensuring fair
Overall, the literature suggests that in decision contexts representation in valuation.
where non-use values are clearly non-negligible and
important for policymaking, and where economic analysis
will in any case be used to support decision-makers,
3.3.2.3.1 Representation
carefully conducted stated preference studies can provide Representation is relevant to understand whose values
useful additional information about non-use values of nature are being assessed. Representation was evaluated using
and biodiversity. two elements in the systematic review: the degree of
representation (i.e., whether the different stakeholder groups
The review finds that other statement-based methods that were identified and targeted as study respondents/
have not been tested systematically to the same extent. participants were represented in the sample), and the
Evidence from reviews about the reliability and validity of characteristics by which stakeholder groups were identified
196
and distinguished (who is included in the valuation process?) engaged respondents as data providers) (Udofia et al.,
(Fish et al., 2011). This latter point, which concerns 2017). Finally, to evaluate the transparency of the process,
the sampling strategy, included for example gender, it was assessed whether applications provide sufficient
political roles, rights, power and interests/stakes. 43% information about the valuation process and outcomes to
of the reviewed valuation studies represent a diversity of different audiences, for example through sharing details
stakeholder perspectives based on aspects such as age, about the methods, meetings, etc. (Bryson et al., 2013)
gender, stakes and power relations (see also Figure 3.38). (Figure 3.40).
For inclusiveness, it was evaluated how the application’s The final aspect of fair representation evaluated was the
process enabled participants to get involved (to ensure community of justice: who/what is (implicitly) considered
“participatory parity”). For example, providing extra time or relevant and valuable in the application (Sikor et al., 2014). For
adjusting language can help to overcome different barriers example, different groups, ranging from (part of) the current
to participation and enable all participants to get involved human population, to future or past generations, animals, and
as equals (Figures 3.38 and 3.39). For instance, 6% of the more-than-human or non-human beings, mother earth, etc
valuations report they engaged with participants in their may be considered relevant for the valuation.
local languages, or communicated through diverse media
(e.g., verbal and written forms) (3%), or managed group Almost all studies have at least basic transparency, but only
composition and size (1%). For participatory approaches a minority fully shares methods and protocols (Figure 3.40).
with group processes, the analysis of power dynamics The systematic literature review found that valuation studies
in applications was registered in the systematic review have largely been focused on generating information about
following Bryson et al. (2013). To evaluate the quality and values at local to regional level (see 3.2) (Figure 3.10) and
consequentiality of participation, the level of participation that almost half of the valuations are unclear about whose
was evaluated by asking whether participants could values are being represented in the study (Figure 3.41).
influence the design, process and outcomes of the valuation Among those studies that do make explicit whose values
and participate meaningfully (or whether the study only are considered, the values of specific groups within current
A B
100% 100%
75% 75%
50% 50%
25% 25%
0% 0%
at d
at d
at d
at d
at d
at d
at d
at d
lu se
lu se
lu se
lu ate
lu se
lu se
lu se
lu ate
n
n
va -ba
va t-ba
va r-ba
io
io
io
io
va -ba
va t-ba
va r-ba
io
io
io
io
va egr
va egr
e
e
t
en
ou
t
en
ou
ur
In
ur
In
em
at
vi
em
at
vi
ha
N
ha
N
at
at
Be
Be
St
St
Data on involvement of groups No data Very high Medium Very low

Data on statistical representation Other High Low
Figure 3 38 Consideration of the representation in valuation: (A) Studies including

information on different types of stakeholders/groups in society the valuation
divided according to method families; (B) the extent to which people are
distinguished, for the studies that do include information on participants.
The distinctions include political, socio economic and cultural indicators (very low (one of fewer indicators) to very high (more than
8 indicators)). (n=1163).
197
Child care
(0.1%)
Type of communication
(3.4%) Time, place, costs compensations
(0.8%)
Other
(0.4%) Language(s) used
(6.4%)
Group composition and size

(1.2%)
None mentioned
(87.6%)
Figure 3 39 Approaches for improving inclusion in valuation.

Most valuation studies do not report on whether efforts were made to expand inclusion. The most common approach to include
more stakeholders is to conduct valuation processes in local languages and to communicate information about the valuation
process in ways that can ensure that it is correctly delivered to relevant stakeholders (e.g., accompanying invitation letters with
verbal communication, using local media and communication channels).
All outputs shared

(0%) Unclear
(3%)
Methods and protocols shared
(3%) Other
(1%)
Not considered
(3%)
General process description

(49%)
Detailed process description
(41%)
Figure 3 40 Consideration of transparency in valuation.

Most valuation studies -provide a process description, while a minority shares detailed methods or outputs.
generations (i.e., people living on the planet at the time of (those who no longer occupy the Earth today except as
the study) prevail (24%) followed by the values of all people memories, spirits and ancestors). A small proportion of
occupying the Earth at the time of the study. Studies have studies considered the values of Mother Earth as a living
rarely considered the values of future generations (those and contemporary entity (6%) in line with worldviews that do
not yet born; 4%) and there is almost complete absence not separate nature from humans. These differences across
of works that considered the values of past generations valuations of whose values are considered reflects other
198
A specific part of today’s people All of today’s people

(24%) (12%)
Future people
(4%)
Past people, ancestors, spirits

(0%)
Non-human beings
(5%)
Mother Earth
(6%)
Unclear
(49%)
Figure 3 41 Community of justice in valuation based on systematic review (n=1163).
aspects of the valuation process, such as who is involved in This is potentially problematic since it ignores distributional
the valuation processes (see 3.2.1.2 and 3.2.4.4) and who issues in the summing up monetary values. The issue can
is considered a legitimate stakeholder in claims for justice in be exacerbated by the fact that willingness to pay often
the community of justice (see 3.3) and less than one percent increases with income (although this is not always true
(0.6%) of studies mention power issues within the valuation since marginal willingness to pay is typically measured),
process itself. skewing what is seen as valuable by cost benefit analysis
towards richer parties. Using a social welfare function (SWF)
makes societal attitudes towards inequality explicit in the
3.3.2.3.2 What is a good outcome for a aggregating function. Evaluation using the social welfare
community or society? function leads to interventions with a fairer distribution of
Nature valuation draws from different disciplinary traditions policy impacts being preferred to alternatives with the same
to gather methodologies that support the evaluation of overall impact distributed more unequally. This approach
community or society improvements as a result from the solves the omission of distributional preferences but relies
implementation of a project or a policy. The methodological on the arguably problematic assumption of inter-personal
challenges involved in robustly supporting judgements at a comparability of utilities: all utilities are measured on
higher social scale than the individual has been debated at the same cardinal (temperature-like) scale (Adler, 2016;
length in valuation (see 3.2.2.4). Sen, 1970).
An important methodological challenge relates to how (if One solution to this issue in cost-benefit analysis is to
possible) to compare the values and impacts on individual deploy equity (distributional) weights when aggregating
people. A fundamental challenge is that values and/or well- monetary values, and cost-benefit analysis guidelines
being are unobservable by the valuator and it is therefore in many countries recommend the practice. In practice,
impossible, in practice, to compare the impact on one distributional weights adjust monetary values for diminishing
specific person to the impact on another (Box 3.6). marginal utility of income/money, thereby placing a higher
weight on poorer households compared to richer. The
In practice, there are challenges both with the assumption United Kingdom Government Green Book Guidelines
of inter-personal comparability of utility or other well-being on cost-benefit analysis discusses these principles (HM
indicators and with the monetarization approach used Treasury, 2020), as do many other guidelines and textbooks
in cost benefit analysis. The downside of not relying on on cost-benefit analysis (OECD, 2018). Despite this, such
the assumption of inter-personal comparability of utility in weights are rarely deployed in practice, for several reasons.
cost-benefit analysis is that once well-being is measured
in monetary terms (willingness to pay or willingness to Practically speaking, using distributional weights in cost
accept) the property of diminishing marginal utility of income benefit analysis can change the appraisal and ranking of
disappears, and all dollar values are treated the same no different interventions (Adler, 2016; Meya, 2020; Meya et
matter to whom they accrue (Adler, 2016) (see Chapter 1). al., 2021) (see Chapter 1). When larger interventions are
199
Box 3 6 Inter-personal comparisons.
There is a long history of debate on making social choices, assumption, intuitively, we are often able to make interpersonal
particularly on inter-personal comparisons of utility (Fleurbaey comparisons of well-being when we say that one person’s well-
& Abi-Rafeh, 2016; Harsanyi, 1987; Sen, 1970). To illustrate being is clearly less than another’s on the basis of differences in
the essential argument, consider measures of subjective health or opportunities (Fleurbaey & Abi-Rafeh, 2016; Harsanyi,
well-being, where individuals express on a scale between 1987; Sen, 1970).
1 – 10 how satisfied they are with their lives. Suppose Ana
reveals a score of 4 and Laila a score of 5. Does this mean Cost benefit analysis (see 3.2.2.4) takes a different approach
that Ana is less satisfied than Laila? Suppose a year later Ana to measuring changes in well-being, and valuation in general.
has a score of 5 and Laila has a score of 6. Does this mean First, individual changes in well-being are measured in monetary
that their satisfaction has increased by the same amount: 1 terms. Compensating or equivalent variations, reflecting
unit? It seems intuitive to say that satisfaction has increased Willingness to Pay (WTP) or Willingness to Accept (WTA), are
for both parties (an intra-personal comparison), but societal calculated in principle at the individual level, reflecting the
value aggregation approaches also require inter-personal individual strength of preferences and the importance attached
comparability to aggregate well-being and make comparisons to changes in circumstances: e.g., ecological quality or nature’s
between different options. contributions to people. Once converted into monetary units,
aggregation and comparisons are then possible in this common
If the numbers above represented utility (rather than subjective metric. No assumptions are made about the inter-personal
well-being, which is technically different (OECD, 2018)), and comparability of utility, and the aggregation of impacts is then
we were using a social welfare function approach, this would straightforward if substitutability between values of nature
mean that the answer to each question would be yes. Ana’s and monetary gains or losses are substitutable (OECD,
well-being is lower than Laila’s but increased by the same 2018, Chapters 1-4). See Chapter 2 for further review of
amount over time. While this is clearly an important underlying this assumption.
evaluated, such as the impact of climate change, the use of decision rules at higher social scales than the individual.
equity weights or social welfare functions that accommodate It states that if individuals have different rankings of, say,
inequality aversion raise considerably the welfare valuation of environmental policies, there is no social welfare function
damages from climate change (the Social Cost of Carbon), that can represent these preferences which also satisfies
in part because climate effects are larger in poor countries transitivity (if a is preferred to b, and b preferred to c, then
and regions (e.g., Anthoff & Emmerling, 2019; Anthoff & a is preferred to c) and a series of other desirable social
Tol, 2010; Kornek et al., 2021). The outcomes for appraisal choice axioms, such as non-dictatorship: social choice
when using distributional weights in cost-benefit analysis being determined by the ranking of one individual (Sen,
will vary from case to case, and in some cases can lead to 1998). Typically, relaxing axioms like Universal Domain
worse outcomes for the poor (Boardman et al., 2020). (UD: that all policies can be ranked) or the Independence
or Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA: that adding new policies
Nevertheless, there are clearly defined approaches to cannot change the rank of other possibilities) are seen as
dealing with distributional issues in cost-benefit analysis a reasonable practical way forward. Cost-benefit analysis
using distributional weights. Cost-benefit analysis with fails the Independence or Irrelevant Alternatives axiom for
distributional weights is sometimes equivalent to defining instance (Adler, 2016).
a social welfare function (SWF). Such approaches
can be used to account for distributional concerns Aggregation of well-being over time is also a central
for environmental (rather than monetary) outcomes issue in welfare economics. While remaining welfarist and
too (Venmans & Groom, 2021). Alternative, pragmatic consequential in general, inter-temporal social welfare
approaches to distributional issues that are more frequently functions can reflect principles of fairness and sustainability,
deployed in public policy appraisal include making clear who in a similar way to intra-temporal social welfare functions. In
are the winners and who are the losers in the constituency an inter-temporal context, the specific social welfare function
and making a value judgement on whether the distribution of implies a particular social discount rate (SDR). A typical
benefits and costs is acceptable given the aggregate gains. utilitarian inter-temporal social welfare function will sum up
Other alternatives include looking at the impact on essential utilities for a representative agent: a single agent that is in
items that determine well-being, and this has been offered some sense representative of the average household and
as an alternative in World Bank guidance on cost-benefit reflects aggregate well-being, over time. Their utility will
analysis in developing countries (Harberger, 1984). reflect diminishing marginal utility, and so an additional unit
of consumption will be worth less to a rich person than
Finally, Arrow’s impossibility theorem (Arrow, 1950) is an a poor person and vice versa. If there is growth (decline)
important result in the debate on how to define appropriate in incomes over time, agents in the future will be richer
200
(poorer) and hence an additional unit of consumption in the Groom (2021) for forests and air quality. The valuation of
future will be discounted positively (negatively) compared the future environment will depend on preferences for the
to the poorer (richer) present agents (Drupp et al., 2018). environment, substitutability of the environment for other
Discounting the future stems in part from the aversion consumption goods, and the uncertainties about future
to inequality and growth. The way in which the future is environmental quality.
discounted from this welfare perspective will depend on the
nature of the social welfare function. Emmerling et al. (2017) Deliberative decision-making takes a very different approach
introduce intra-generation inequality, Dietz & Asheim (2012) to the question of how to make judgements at higher social
introduce sustainability constraints, Gollier (2013) introduces scales than the individual level. A judgement should be
uncertainty in future prospects, Sterner & Persson (2008) based on a dialogue between equals and a judgement is
introduce environmental scarcity and Drupp (2018) rational if it is the result of a free exchange of arguments
introduces limited substitutability and strong sustainability. for or against a course of action (Habermas, 1996; O’Hara,
Each social welfare function affects the valuation placed 1996). This makes participation of stakeholders in the
on the future by the society, often raising the valuation deliberative process essential for the legitimacy of the
compared to historical economic analysis. Since 2003, the decision (Schaafsma et al. 2018) (see 3.3.2.2). Furthermore,
United Kingdom government has used a declining discount participation as equals becomes a fundamental requirement
rate due to uncertainty about the long-run future. France, for the suitability of this approach (see 3.3.2.3). In nature
Norway and Denmark do the same (Groom & Hepburn, valuation, deliberative decision-making, as a process
2017). The United States of America cost-benefit analysis to generate collective decision-making has developed
guidelines recommend a lower rate for very long-run for in response to perceived shortcoming of individual
similar reasons of uncertainty. aggregation approaches. The critique has both been
based on a critique of conceptualising society as a sum of
The value of the future environment today is a key area of individuals and a critique of monetization. The proponents
research. Many studies have illustrated the implications for have advocated for the need for democratic procedures to
rising scarcity of environmental assets and the lower social reach judgement on socially desirable actions rather than
discount rate that this can imply: Baumgärtner et al. (2015) technical procedures involved in aggregation (Bartkowski
for ecosystem services, Drupp & Hänsel (2020) and Sterner & Lienhoop, 2019; Howarth & Wilson, 2006; Sagoff, 1988)
& Persson (2008) for climate change, and Venmans and (see Chapter 2 ).
100%
19%
75%
7.1% 50%
60.6% 0.8%
3.7%
0.8% 25%
7.9%
0%
at d
at d
at d
at d
lu se
lu se
lu se
lu ate
n
n
va -ba
va t-ba
va r-ba
io
io
io
io
va egr
e
t
en
ou
ur
In
m
at
vi
ha
e
N
at
Be
St
No aggregation Extrapolate aggregation with social weights to higher social scale

Unclear/other aggregation to social value Extrapolate aggregated values to higher social scale
Deliberative process to obtain social values Aggregate sum of individual values
Aggregation with social weights
Figure 3 42 Approaches to aggregate individually held values for the collective or a higher
social scale to support decision-making (n=1163).
201
The practice of valuation also reflects the theoretical vary significantly within each group method and bear strong
debates on aggregation. The valuation result at the interdependencies, since choosing a method depends on
higher social scale can be achieved by aggregation of the existing expertise and the available budget and time. In
different stakeholders’ values or aggregation of individually many contexts, it is only possible to rely on existing valuation
expressed values. Aggregation by simple sums, sometimes outputs and use the outputs to attend the policy problem at
extrapolated to higher social scales, occurs most often. hand. We therefore divide this section into two subsections;
Sometimes, weights are applied to reflect the social the first section outlining the evidence on resource needs
judgement that the consequences for some people or areas for use of valuation methods; the second section giving
are considered more important than others. Figure 3.42 a review of existing approaches to make use of existing
shows the findings from the systematic review. Group based valuation outputs in a new policy section.
development of values for a higher social scale in particular
(see 3.2.2.2) places emphasis on equal opportunities to 3.3.3.1 Resource needs for methods
participate in the valuation and acknowledges that power
applications
asymmetry needs to be addressed. However, the systematic
review found that less than one percent (0.6%) of studies Different valuation methods vary with respect to the type of
mention power issues within the valuation process itself, and data used to generate value information and the resource
that only a small 5% applies social weights in aggregation. barriers can therefore be characterised using the method
family classification. For all families we divide resource needs
The evidence shows that over half of valuation studies in terms of technical skills, existing data sources, network
do not present the results of the valuation at higher social and stakeholder trust, time and financial resources. Overall,
scales. Of the studies that do bring the values together to the assessment found limited comprehensive sources to
form a judgement, simple aggregation of values is the most assess resource needs for valuation. The section is based
common approach, followed by using weights. A minority of on the evidence generated from the review of methods
valuation develops social values using deliberation. (see 3.2.2).
In conclusion, research on robustness of valuation

processes has focused on different aspects of robustness,
reflecting the intended use of the valuation outputs Data resources for nature-based valuation could be
and the disciplinary perspectives of the valuator. The classified as biotic or abiotic. Biotic data would entail all
criteria for how to judge robustness are contested; some information related to species, ecosystems and ecological
sources of evidence emphasise legitimacy and other processes (Tashie & Ringold, 2019). Abiotic data would
sources emphasise theoretical consistency and accuracy. refer to all data on geophysical processes that influence
Robustness has mainly been formally evaluated using biota (e.g., hydrodynamics), but also abiotic parameters like,
reliability criteria by synthesising evidence from multiple e.g., wave energy or geomorphology. Such data can be
studies. As true values cannot be observed, and valuation obtained through different sources ranging from collected
informs decisions in different ways, reliability and validity field data, to data collected through Earth observation (e.g.,
guidance must be adapted to the valuation needs and remote sensing, unmanned aerial vehicles; Tashie & Ringold,
the valuation methods chosen. In practical applications 2019), data inferred through modelling processes, and data
of valuation methods, limited attention has been given extracted from large global databases.
to formally assess robustness, both reliability and fair
representation. Good practice guidelines exist for some The expertise required to collect data, quantify and map or
approaches but are not generally available for a wide model biodiversity and ecosystem services with nature-
range of methods. Development of a wider range of based methods, spans across a multitude of disciplines.
practical guidelines sensitive to the valuation purpose has Within the ecosystem services body of literature, Droste
the potential to improve the robustness of valuation and et al. (2018) identified that upon the beginning of the
decrease the risk of (mis)informing decisions and in turn concept, assessments were mono-disciplinary. Yet as the
produce perverse outcomes. concept evolved and the topics became more complex,
the assessments required inter- and multi-disciplinary
expertise. Expertise required for nature-based valuation
3.3.3 Resources for valuation ranges from: i) topic expertise required for field data
collection; ii) modelling expertise; iii) geo-informatics
Methods and tools also vary in their feasibility for widespread expertise for mapping and modelling; to iv) social science
use, resource (e.g., time and expertise) requirements, expertise for participatory approaches used to engage with
or degree of stakeholder involvement. Different types of resource users. Palomo et al. (2018) identified the lack
resources are needed in terms of data, expertise required, of relevant expertise as one of the major bottlenecks in
time and budget to conduct valuation. These four aspects ecosystem services mapping.
202
Time and cost of the different methods also vary significantly a useful approach (see 3.2.2). Behaviour-based approaches
with the method. While time and cost are generally correlated therefore vary in their requirement for existing data sources.
(i.e., the longer it takes to undertake a study, the more it Cost-based methods are generally seen as a low-cost
costs), it is not always the case. Direct measurements and option for behaviour- based valuation (see 3.2.2.3).
participatory approaches are more suitable for assessments
of smaller extent, but require time to cover larger areas The expertise varies between highly technical expertise
(Brown & Kyttä, 2018), yet the cost is relatively low. Mapping required to conduct e.g., hedonic pricing methods (see
and modelling are rapid methods for areas of larger extent 3.2.2.3) to qualitative data collection approaches using
but require time for learning the method and the software. participant observations (see 3.2.2.3).
According to Bagstad et al. (2013), decision-makers feel
that running quantitative models takes too much time and Time and costs generally result from the amount of prior
costs too much in comparison to the depth and quality investment in existing data collection infrastructure and
of information added to the decision-making process. modelling expertise. Given the high quality of core data
Depending on the topic under investigation, the cost could sets on biophysical resources and socio demographic
range from low (when the assessment uses open data), characteristics, behaviour-based valuation can be relatively
to very high (mainly when dealing with very high resolution inexpensive, however developing the infrastructure is often a
(VHR) Earth observation products). large investment (Lupi et al., 2020).
Statement-based valuation Integrated valuation
As the valuation is usually based on questionnaires, interviews As integrated valuation brings together diverse approaches
or group discussions, statement-based valuation often has to synthesise diverse valuation information, the resources
limited requirements for existing data sources. It is also this requirements also reflect this diversity. Some approaches
characteristic that makes the methods highly adaptable are highly technical (such as integrated modelling, see
to new contexts where valuation has not been conducted 3.2.2.4) and thus the resource requirements resample some
previously. The main costs relate to the development of of the valuation approaches in nature-based valuation or
the elicitation format and the implementation of the data behaviour-based valuation relying on existing data and
collection. When participatory approaches are conducted, model infrastructure. Other methods (such as deliberative
projects often need to pay the opportunity costs borne by decision-making approaches, see 3.2.2.4) have resource
local stakeholders (Evans, 2018). This can be a significant requirements that resemble statement-based approaches.
cost when valuations seek to engage with many participants.
See further information on resource requirements on selected
The expertise varies from statistical data collection design methods for which sufficient information exists to evaluate
skills to facilitation skills, and often both sets of skills are limitations for use in resource limited contexts in Section 3.4.
needed to conduct a full valuation process (see 3.2.2).
3.3.3.2 Using pre-existing valuation
Time and costs required for data collection often face
outputs: benefit transfer
additional constraints related to participants availability.
The valuator needs to adapt data collection to suit Benefit transfer is the use of pre-existing empirical estimates
the participants, and for group-based processes the from one or more sites or contexts where research
organizational challenges to bring together the relevant has been conducted previously to predict measures of
stakeholders requires careful planning over a longer economic value for other, typically unstudied sites or
timeframe (see 3.2.2.2). contexts. Transfers can occur over different locations, times,
populations, policies, or other dimensions. The primary
feature that distinguishes benefit transfer from other types
Behaviour-Based valuation
of economic valuation is that values are quantified through
Availability of data sources to conduct behaviour-based the use of “existing data or information in settings other
valuation is often a barrier to apply methods in this family. than for what it was originally collected” (Rosenberger &
Both data to characterise aspects of nature, such as the Loomis, 2003, p. 445). Virtually any type of economic value
spatial distribution of available resources, and data on information can be transferred. Common examples involve
people’s activities can be very costly to obtain. In recent transfers of welfare estimates from recreation demand
years more applications have utilised remotely sourced models, hedonic property value models, stated preference
data, e.g., using Global Positioning System (see 3.2.2) but studies (choice experiments and contingent valuation) and
where such options are not available or not suitable for the other types of non-market valuation, representing values for
valuation, low-cost options collecting data from resource changes in many different types of environmental goods and
users through questionnaires and interviews, continue to be services (Johnston et al., 2018).
203
Benefit transfer is only one of many procedures that information on the decisions (Newbold & Johnston, 2020).
extrapolate existing biophysical or socio-economic Limited research in this area suggests that the cost of original
information to predict outcomes in new situations. However, valuation studies is usually justified for major environmental
environmental benefit transfer has been described as one of decisions (eg., Allen & Loomis, 2008; Barton, 2007; Navrud
the most difficult types of information transfer, due to factors & Pruckner, 1997; Newbold & Johnston, 2020).
such as the provision of environmental goods and services
outside of organised markets, common lack of consistency In practice, however, benefit transfer is often indispensable,
in the biophysical measures used to quantify these non- because practical constraints preclude the use of original
market goods and services in original valuation studies, studies to provide the information required for policy or
and the fact that economic welfare measures cannot be program analysis (Newbold et al., 2018). Within the context
observed directly (Boyd et al., 2016; Boyle et al., 2010). As of United States federal policy analysis, for example,
a result, environmental benefit transfer has faced greater Newbold et al. (2018, p. 469) argues that, ‘it is impossible
scrutiny than other types of information transfer, with an to conduct a prospective [benefit–cost analysis] without the
extensive literature devoted to topics such as validity and use of at least some form of benefit (and cost) transfers’.
reliability (Boyle et al., 2010; Rosenberger, 2015). This tension is discussed by Johnston et al. (2018, p. 179),
who acknowledge that benefit transfer ‘is rarely a preferred
Reviews of benefit transfer theory, methods and practice are valuation method but is arguably the most common
provided by Boyle et al. (2010), Johnston and Rosenberger valuation method within large-scale benefit–cost analysis’.
(2010) and Johnston et al. (2018), among others. As
discussed by this literature, the accuracy of benefit transfer The uptake of benefit transfer to inform policy and program
depends on the underlying accuracy of the original study or decisions is well documented in developed-country
studies that provide the information to be transferred, along contexts, including the United States, European Union and
with the generalisation error caused by the extrapolation Canada. A historical perspective on United States uptake
of that information to new settings (Boyle et al., 2010; is provided by Loomis (2015, p. 61), who notes that ‘U.S.
Rosenberger & Stanley, 2006). Accordingly, benefit transfer federal and state agencies have used beneﬁt transfers,
accuracy depends on the capacity of transfer procedures in one form or another, for decades’. The use of benefit
to calibrate transferred value information to new setting(s). transfer as part of United States Environmental Protection
Corresponding to this expectation, past reviews find that Agency (US EPA) regulatory impact analyses is well
benefit-function transfers tend to be more accurate than documented (Griffiths et al., 2012; Griffiths & Wheeler, 2005;
simpler unit-value transfers on average, although there are Iovanna & Griffiths, 2006; Newbold et al., 2018; Wheeler,
exceptions to this general finding (Johnston et al., 2018; 2015), and benefit transfer has been recognized within
Rosenberger, 2015). The use of data-synthesis approaches the agency’s guidelines for economic analysis for over two
such as meta-analysis may also improve accuracy (Kaul et decades (US EPA, 2000, 2010). Methods used for these
al., 2013). Yet although there is increasing consensus over applications have evolved from simple unit-value transfers in
best practices that are expected to enhance the validity and the 1980s and 1990s to more recent applications of more
reliability of benefit transfers on average, it is still difficult to sophisticated benefit-function and meta-analytic transfers
predict how individual methods will perform within specific (Wheeler, 2015). Other United States examples include
applications (Johnston et al., 2018, p. 222). applications to policy, program and planning analyses within
the United States Department of Agriculture (e.g., USDA
Discussions on the need for, and role of benefit transfer NRCS, 2010), United States Department of Commerce
within decision-making are provided by sources such as (e.g., Samonte et al., 2017), United States Forest Service
Boyle et al. (2010), Brouwer and Navrud (2015), Griffiths (e.g., Rosenberger & Loomis, 2001), and others (Loomis,
et al. (2012), Griffiths and Wheeler (2005), Iovanna and 2015). Benefit transfers have also been used to support
Griffiths (2006), Johnston et al. (2015, 2018); Johnston liability payments for court cases (Boyle et al., 2010; Loomis,
and Rosenberger (2010), Loomis (2015), Rolfe et al. (2015) 2015). As in the United States, official guidance for cost-
and Wheeler (2015). In principle, decisions on whether to benefit analysis in Canada recognizes benefit transfer as an
use original valuation studies or benefit transfers to inform allowable practice (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat,
decisions should depend on the value of information (VOI) 2007), and reports utilising benefit transfer have been used
provided by these alternative value-estimation approaches to inform government actions (Dupont & Renzetti, 2008).
compared to the associated cost of information. Value of
information is determined by the expected increase in the net Brouwer and Navrud (2015) review applications of benefit-
social value of policy or program decisions made possible transfer in Europe, with multiple examples of cases in which
by the provided value information, as influenced by factors benefit transfer has been used to inform environmental
such as the magnitude of benefits and costs that depend policies and programs. These include the External Costs
on the decisions to be made, the relative accuracy of each of Energy (ExternE) project supported by the European
prospective study type, and the potential influence of value Commission (European Commission Directorate, 2005). The
204
European Water Framework Directive (WFD) (approved in Development Programme – United Nations Environmental
2000) requires river basin management plans to consider Programme (UNDP-UNEP) Poverty-Environment Initiative
measures of benefits and costs and has thereby promoted in Rwanda, which applies benefit transfer techniques to
applications of benefit transfers to quantify these measures evaluate benefits from a green village demonstration. In
(Rosenberger & Loomis, 2003). Brouwer and Navrud contrast to some developed countries (and particularly the
(2015) describe a set of benefit transfers linked to the United States), it is difficult to find documentation of cases
WFD. An example at the national level is United Kingdom in which benefit transfer has been applied by individual
National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA, 2011), which government agencies within developing countries. Either
applied multiple benefit transfer approaches to estimate such applications do not exist, or they have been conducted
ecosystem service values (Bateman et al., 2011; Brouwer & in ways that are not documented for external searches.
Navrud, 2015).
Benefit transfer techniques have also been adopted within
Compared to the United States and Europe, reviews worldwide, intergovernmental valuation and accounting
of benefit-transfer applications report fewer examples initiatives. For example, benefit transfer techniques are
of uptake related to policy and program decisions in recognized in the draft ecosystem accounting framework
other regions of the world. A summary of benefit transfer of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting
applications in Australia and New Zealand is provided by (SEEA), prepared under the auspices of the United Nations
Rolfe et al. (2015). In principle, valuations of economic Committee of Experts on Environmental Accounting
benefits or costs via benefit transfer can occur in these (UN, 2020). Within this context, benefit transfer methods
countries under multiple types of governmental policy and provide a way to generalise values to a national accounting
program analyses, including Regulatory Impact Statements area adjusting for spatial variation in ecosystem services
and Environmental Impact Assessments. However, the use and recording reliability. Another example is found in the
of benefit transfer (or more generally non-market valuation) Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Valuation
within these analyses is uncommon (Rolfe et al., 2015). Database Manual (McVittie & Hussain, 2013), which
contains over two hundred examples of values estimated
Within developing countries, benefit transfers have been using benefit transfer. The Economics of Ecosystems
implemented by and for intergovernmental organisations, and Biodiversity (TEEB) training package for national
and are documented in a diversity of technical reports, implementers and practitioners further recognizes benefit
project appraisals and other publications. For example, transfer as an applicable valuation tool.
an OECD report calculates Value of Statistical Life (VSL)
estimates for countries such as China and India using benefit As observed within prior reviews of research and practice,
transfer (Brouwer & Navrud, 2015; OECD, 2014). Dixon there is a common divergence between the flexible and
(2012) reports on the use of benefit transfers to estimate sophisticated procedures commonly recommended in the
the benefits of waste-water treatment in Guyana, Trinidad academic literature and those applied by practitioners.
and Tobago, Paraguay and Uruguay, as part of a discussion This gap appears to be larger and more common for
paper for the Inter-American Development Bank. A technical developing-country applications. As illustrated by many of
report prepared for the United Nations Collaborative the sources discussed above, applications in the United
Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and States and Europe are increasingly moving towards meta-
Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD) analysis and other more sophisticated procedures. However,
applies benefit transfer to illustrate values linked to reducing developing-country applications often rely on unit-value and
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in other simpler approaches that tend to be less accurate.
Panama (Narloch, 2014). Similar transfers have been Addressing this divergence between research and practice
conducted by international non-governmental organisations has long been recognized as a challenge (Johnston et al.,
(e.g., Bello et al., 2014 in Colombia). 2018; Johnston & Rosenberger, 2010).
Developing-country transfers are frequently conducted to

raise awareness of economic values or to provide general 3.3.4 Trade-offs between
background information for policy development. There are relevance, robustness and
also examples of benefit transfer within formal policy and
resources in method choice
program evaluations. Silva and Pagiola (2003), for example,
review the valuation conducted for World Bank project Sections 3.3.1-3.3.3 have outlined key considerations for
evaluations and report multiple applications of benefit valuation choices on relevance (see 3.3.1), robustness
transfer. Individual World Bank project appraisal documents (see 3.3.2) and resources (see 3.3.3). It is rarely possible to
also apply to benefit transfer methods (eg., World Bank, conduct valuation to support decision-making processes
2009, 2017). An illustration of ex-post program assessment that simultaneously i) provides all relevant information
is provided by Maradan’s (2017) report to the United Nations from all relevant stakeholders, ii) brings forward robust
205
information on all important aspects of the alternative purpose of the valuation. Finally, the resources that should
options, while iii) doing so using very few resources. be spent on valuation is not just based on availability but
Any choice of valuation process and methods therefore also on whether the information is worth it in relation to
entails trade-offs. In the following, we refer to the three the prospects of the decision alternatives (see 3.3.1.3).
dimensions of valuation (relevance, robustness and The decision-making purpose is therefore a condition for
resources) as the 3Rs for simplicity. We synthesise the evaluating the suitability of a method with respect to each
relative strength of individual methods, reviewed in Section of the 3Rs. For each method, we outline what characterises
3.2.2, with respect to the 3Rs. This entails assessing the performance of the methods on each of the three
their capacity to provide information on different types of criteria and how performance can be improved. For
values in a wide range of socio-ecological contexts, the example, relevance has two performance measures –the
robustness of the value information for different decision- capacity to elicit diverse values in diverse socio-ecological
making purposes, and the need for existing data sources contexts, which are separately assessed in terms of the
and time and financial resources to obtain the valuation strength of evidence for each method. For each method,
results. For the assessment, we select well established we illustrate the three dimensions for a specific policy
valuation methods across the four method families, for purpose as an example. Further material on the choice
which sufficient information has been obtained from the of methods within a valuation process is presented in
reviews. Each of the 3R dimensions needs to be assessed Section 3.4.
given the policy purpose. This is perhaps self-evident,
but still worth emphasising as this dependence makes The assessment of selected methods is summarised in
it challenging to provide overall principles for a choice of Table 3.10 based on the reviews and Section 3.2.2 and
valuation methods. Which values are relevant to assess the systematic review of valuation (the methodology for
depends on what the valuation will be used for, and how evaluating the criteria is outlined in Annex 3.13). For more
robust the valuation needs to be, both with respect to information about the individual methods please refer to
reliability and fair representation is also determined by the Sections 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.2, 3.2.2.3 and 3.2.2.4.
Table 3 10 Comparing valuation across nature-based, statement-based, behaviour-based

and integrated valuation using the 3R criteria (Relevance, Robustness and
Resources).
Strength of evidence is assessed to one of the following categories: Well-established (large bubble); Established but incomplete
(small bubble). Methods with less available evidence have not been included in the assessment.
RELEVANCE ROBUSTNESS RESOURCES

Diverse values and socio- Reliability and fair Initial capacity and costs and
ecological contexts representation time for valuation
Fair Conducting
Values Contexts Reliability Capacity
representation valuation
Ecosystem • Linking nature to nature’s • Reliability testing in terms of • High initial resource requirements
service contributions to peoples accuracy of the tools are emerging (geoinformatics and geospatial
mapping • Instrumental Values • Generally low representation of data)
• Applicable to all nature’s multiple stakeholders • Modest valuation costs when
contributions to peoples & applied initial data and skills are available
across ecosystems & global contexts
at different scales
How to improve • Improved understanding of who is • Improve availability of data globally • Capacity building and developing
the 3Rs impacted by changes in ecosystem • Validate using local data collaboration among data holders
services • Higher spatial resolution and modelers and ultimate users
• Apply to alternative policy scenarios
Strenght of the
evidence
Biodiversity • Ecological integrity • Reliability in terms of accuracy of • High initial resource requirements
priority • Intrinsic values the tools are emerging (geoinformatics and geospatial
mapping • Multiple biomes and scales • Sensitive to the selected experts data)
involved • High data needs
206

Fair Conducting
How to improve • Being more specific about the • Robustness can be improved • Capacity building and developing
the 3Rs purpose would increase policy through harmonization and model- collaboration among data holders
relevance based integration of multiple types and modelers and ultimate users
of biodiversity and environmental
data from heterogeneous sources
Strenght of the
evidence
Statement-based Valuation
Stated • Instrumental values • Allow consistent comparisons of • Requires expert knowledge in

preference • Amenable to a wide range of diverse values designing the survey instrument
economic values and understanding of • Reliable for informative, decisive, • Practical guidance widely
social drivers of economic decisions and technical purposes given available
• Highly versatile and adaptable to adherence to best practice • Valuation can be scaled in size to
a large range of socio-ecological • Can provide information on available budget
contexts distributional effects
How to improve • Design of the valuation in dialogue • Adhere to best practice guidelines • Adhere to best practice
the 3Rs with stakeholders and policy/ on design process in collaboration guidelines for the design and
scientific experts can greatly improve with stakeholders and users of the data collection
the relevance. information • Training required for reliable use
Strenght of the
evidence
Q sorting • Understanding diverse perspective • The samples are non-random • Adapted to small group size, but
on a policy question, but mainly for implying limited generalizability of requires considerable planning
informative purposes the findings and representativeness time and preparation time
• Can provide information on of key stakeholders • Freely available software & does
incompatible perspectives not rely on existing data
• Applicable to broad and specific
values
• Applied to a wide range of policy
areas and socio-ecological contexts
How to improve • Relatively new technique in valuation. • More testing in valuation contexts • Development of best practice
the 3Rs Incorporating the method in the would improve the robustness of guidelines for use in valuation
valuation design could improve the the approach
relevance
Strenght of the
evidence
Behaviour-based valuation
Revealed • Economic use values • Allow consistent inclusion of non- • High initial data requirements
preference • Applicable to few types of values market values • High level of statistical skills
• Instrumental values • Reliable when adhering to best • Modest implementation costs
practice guidelines
• Representation often only partial for
the community or society in general
How to improve • Open access to a wider range of • Clarity about the restricted range of • Capacity building and developing
the 3Rs socio-demographic, economic and values and the partial representation collaboration among data holders
environmental data of potential stakeholders and modelers and ultimate users.
Strenght of the
evidence
Livelihood • Relevant to a broad range of socio- • Reliable for assessing households • Low requirements for initial data
assessment economic contexts where people’s and communities’ dependence on and technical infrastructure
livelihood is directly dependent on nature • Time demanding and reliance
nature • Allow representative assessments on investment in engaging
• Instrumental values of different social groups stakeholders
• Good practice guidelines available
to conduct valuation
How to improve • Designing assessments based on • Involvement of local stakeholders in • Adherence of good practice
the 3Rs context specific understanding from the design of the assessment guide and livelihood assessment
local stakeholders about livelihood- tools would help to optimize the
nature dependency time and resource requirements
207
Table 3 10

Fair Conducting
Strenght of the
evidence
Integrated valuation
Integrative • Linking nature and natural processes • Reliability usually depicted • High initial resource requirements
method: to well-being indicators through accuracy and precision in to develop the approach
• Often few very specific value replications • High data needs
Integrated
modelling indicators • Limited focus on representation of
• Instrumental, intrinsic values stakeholders
How to improve • Design of the valuation in dialogue • Testing model concepts in different • Capacity building and developing
the 3Rs with policy and scientific experts can settings collaboration among data holders
greatly improve the relevance • Transparency and documentation and modelers and ultimate users
Strenght of the
evidence
Integrative • Participatory valuation technique to • Reliability in replicating the same • Modest to low initial data and
method: elicit place-based values of nature results is generally low. infrastructure
Participatory • Versatile and adaptable to a large • Stakeholders’ representation in the • Time consuming in planning the
mapping number of socio-ecological contexts process is generally at high level valuation activity
• Applicable to broad and specific • Require engagement with the
values relevant social groups
• Instrumental, intrinsic and relational
values
How to improve • Increasing public participation • Considerations on fairness • Good facilitation skills
the 3Rs • Improving spatial data quality and equity in the process and • Allowing time for qualitative data
stakeholder representation collection and interpretation
• Finding scalable mapping techniques
to suit spatial decision contexts
Strenght of the
evidence
Integration • Applicable to combine instrumental • High reliability in replicating the • Moderately data intensive,
method: values measured in monetary terms results when adhering to good hence, rely on existing socio-
(market and non-market) practice guide economic and environmental
Cost-Benefit
• Versatile and applicable to different • Sensitive to the consistency of data
Analysis
(CBA) socio-ecological contexts the value concepts used and the • Moderate time and costs to
• Allow ranking of alternative options aggregation rules used conduct evaluation
that vary in monetary costs, monetary • Sensitive to choice of discount rate • Requires moderate to high level
benefits, and time period • Stakeholders’ engagement in of skills or knowledge about
the process is generally low but economic analysis
all stakeholders are in principle
included in the evaluation
How to improve • Sensitivity analysis • Considerations of equity and justice • Following good practice guide
the 3Rs • Inclusion of uncertainty aspects in the analysis • Careful planning
• Increasing stakeholders in the
definition of the scope of the valuation
Strenght of the
evidence
Integration • Allow ranking of alternative options • Often high reliability on outcomes • Moderate in time and resource
method: that vary with respect to multiple but the outcomes are the result of requirements
criteria trade-offs across different decision • Can be adjusted to available
Multi-Criteria
• Accommodate different value criteria and sensitive to weights. resources
Decision
Analysis dimensions • Often high level of representation of
(MCDA) • Versatile (many different types of different stakeholder perspectives
Multi Criteria Decision Analysis) and in the decision-making process
widely applicable to varying socio-
ecological and decision-making
contexts
208

Fair Conducting
How to improve • Relevance can be improved by • Improving transparency of the • Choose the Multi Criteria
the 3Rs having good practice guide on process, in particular how weighting Decision Analysis tool which
inclusion of stakeholders, quantifying of criteria is implemented match resources available
uncertainty, and overcoming • Incorporate uncertainty
negotiation difficulties when large
number of stakeholders (groups) are
involved in decision-making
Strenght of the
evidence
Integration • Process to form a value judgement in • Designed to ensure fair • Low initial investment costs
method: an open dialogue representation of arguments • Moderate time costs for the
Deliberative • Accommodate broad and specific • Conducted with few individuals and valuator to prepare the activity
decision values can suffer from small-sample bias • High time commitment from
process • Instrumental, intrinsic and relational and thus less reliable participants and potentially
• Sensitive to who is participating compensation for participation
How to improve • Design process in dialogue with • Transparency about representation • Careful planning and
the 3Rs policy and scientific informants • Careful facilitation coordination
• Relevance can be improved with • Management of power dynamics • Testing of guidelines
more testing in different nature
valuation context
Strenght of the
evidence
No valuation: • Increasing application in policy and • Reliability is contingent on • Quick, efficient and cost effective
practice availability of suitable value • No need for additional resources
Benefit
• Specific to monetary – use and non- estimates and capacity of transfer for new valuation studies
Transfer (BT)
use values procedures to calibrate transferred • Requires moderate to high
• Applicable to specific values value information (adjustments) – statistical/analytical knowledge
not always high, often moderate and skills to adhere to best
• Limited or no representation practice
of stakeholders or other social
considerations (equity and fairness)
in the transfer process
How to improve • Increasing primary studies for value • Improving benefit transfer • Adhering to good practice
the 3Rs estimates procedures or value moderation guidelines
• Covering broad range of nature’s processes
contributions to peoples, species, • Increasing stakeholder
and socio-ecological contexts consultations in use of transfers
• Better characterization of valuation • Bridging the gap between research
and application contexts (matching and practice
the sites)
Strenght of the
evidence
The valuation methods are suitable for different decision- decision-making includes Naidoo et al. (2008), Vorstius &
making contexts. Below we exemplify common contexts Spray (2015); Maes et al. (2012).
where the methods can provide useful insight.
Biodiversity priority mapping. The methods in this
Ecosystem service mapping. This method can help to category can help to estimate species population,
link biophysical characteristics with ecosystem services to distribution or abundance using multiple data. They are
assess nature’s contributions to people. They are mainly useful for informational or decisive purposes (i.e., biodiversity
suitable for informative and decisive use related to spatial prioritisation); but do not elicit species values as such.
planning (Box 3.2). Multiple mapping tools are available, Their application requires modelling infrastructure (data and
but most are data, time and capacity (skills/knowledge) software) and implementation costs if applied for biodiversity
intensive. There is a trade-off between user friendliness assessment and monitoring purposes. Illustrative examples of
and accuracy of the results based on data quality and tools the applications to support decision-making include Jetz et al.
used. Illustrative examples of the applications to support (2019); Meller et al., (2014); SANBI & UNEP-WCMC (2016).
209
Stated preferences. These methods have mainly been integrated hydro-economic accounting system. Hjerppe and
used for informative policy purposes, but applications for Vaisanen (2015) developed an integrated model system for
decisive and technical purposes are also reported. An cost-effective river basin management of phosphorus. There
example of the use for as a technical purpose is the use of is limited information on whether the increasing number
a choice experiment conducted with farmers for the design of studies in this domain have been merely of informative
of an agro-environmental scheme in Germany (Breustedt et use or whether they have been used for aiding decisions
al., 2013). The choice experiment was used to define the more directly.
compensation requirements for the programme. Another
example is the contingent valuation study conducted Participatory mapping. The methods allow stakeholders
to estimate damages to nature caused by the British to map out importance or values of natural resources. There
Petroleum oil spill in the Mexican Gulf in 2010 (Bishop et al., are a range of methods requiring localised information in
2017). One advantage of the methods is that it allows for order to use geographic information tools. Applicable for
estimation of non-use values (see 3.3.2.2). specific or broad values; commonly used for instrumental
and relational type of values based on mapping and
Q-sorts. The methods can help understand conflicts and stakeholders’ consultations. Resource needs in terms of
different positions about virtually any topic (both broad and time and costs can be adjusted and can be applied to many
specific value perspectives) but does not elicit values as socio-environmental and socio-cultural contexts. Illustrative
such. The methodology is mainly suitable for informative examples of the applications to support decision-making
use and scoping of valuation processes. The methodology include Palomo et al. (2011), Wolf et al. (2015), Brown &
is not suitable for generalisation to higher social scales Kyttä (2018) and Fagerholm et al. (2021).
as it is sensitive to small sample bias. It does not require
large infrastructure but is still time consuming to develop Cost Benefit Analysis. This method aggregate benefits
for a specific policy question. Illustrative examples of the and costs of alternatives; use money metric to provide
applications to understand value perspectives include Rust relevant information for decision-makers to choose between
(2017); Mazur & Asah (2013); and Zabala et al. (2018). investment or policy options. Sensitive to the choice
of discount rates, and availability of benefits and costs
Revealed preferences. The methods can be used to information. Can’t accommodate non-monetary values.
estimate specific values; they implicitly elicit the instrumental Moderate requirements in terms of existing data. Illustrative
values of nature. Can be used for informational, decisive examples of the applications to support decision-making
purposes and technical purposes. The methods are data include Song et al. (2018) and Markanday et al. (2019).
intensive both in terms of socio-economic data and data
on the aspects of nature that the valuation seeks to assess. Multi-criteria Decision Aid. The method can be used
Low on-going costs are needed to conduct new valuations to integrate value estimates based on multiple criteria or
on the same policy question. Illustrative examples of the weightings. Applicable to specific or broad values that are
applications to support decision-making include Pandit et al. instrumental, intrinsic and relational in nature. Do not elicit
(2014); Johnston et al. (2017); Heagney et al. (2019). values per se on its own but can help value integration. Can
capture multiple stakeholder views. Result is contingent
Livelihood assessments. The methods can help to on weightings applied for different criteria. Not much initial
understand (rural) households’ access and use natural investment required for application for many versions of
resources. Useful to characterise specific values that are Multi Criteria Decision Analysis. Illustrative examples of the
primarily instrumental through a resource dependency applications to support decision-making include Kurth et al.
linkage. Can be used for informative and decisive purposes (2017) and Adem Esmail & Geneletti (2018).
in decision-making. Requires time to engage with
stakeholders, can be performed with low infrastructure Deliberative Integration methods. This method can
(capacity) needs. Illustrative examples of the applications to be used for decisive policy purposes in a wide range
support decision-making include Barnes et al. (2017) and of contexts where a judgement on a course of action
Adams (2020). impacting multiple stakeholders (often in diverse ways)
needs to be made. The method is not widely used (see
Integrated modelling. This approach has been developed 3.2.2.4) but can potentially allow for representation of
for decision support in different fields. As an example, hydro- multiple types of values among diverse social groups in
economic modelling approaches have been developed relatively resource efficient ways. An illustrative example of
to inform the implementation of the Water Framework the use of the methods is in the context of placement of
Directive in Europe, identifying cost-effective programmes wind turbines in landscape (Mehltretter Drury et al., 2021).
of measures as required by the Directive (e.g., Brouwer et
al., 2007). Brouwer’s model development is built on a rich Benefit Transfer. The method allows transferring specific
hydrological and economic data set based on a Dutch values that are mostly instrumental from studied site to a
210
policy site with relevant adjustments. Prone to discrepancies economic nature valuation initiatives, The Economics of
on values based on (match or mis-match) of sites, transfer Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity initiative (TEEB, 2010),
methods applied, species or services under considerations. the United Nations System of Environmental and Economic
Can be used for informational and decisive purposes. No Accounts – Ecosystem Accounts (UNSEEA EA) and
investment and implementation costs needed if suitable Comprehensive Wealth approach (similar to the inclusive
value databases exist but generating values for a particular wealth approach) recently advocated in the Dasgupta
policy purpose requires time. Illustrative examples of the Review (Dasgupta, 2021) (see 2.2 and 6.2). The Economics
applications to support decision-making include Johnston et of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity initiative promotes
al. (2015); Subroy et al. (2019); Plummer (2009). that using a wide range of valuation methods, which are
suited and can be adapted for valuation of different projects
The analysis in this section has highlighted that there are and policies, can enable inclusion of nature’s values in
trade-offs in method choice and that no method performs decision making (see reviews of the economic valuation
highly on all criteria. It is therefore important to clearly define methods in section 3.2.2). More material on the United
what the objective of a valuation is and which types of Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting
risks that are most important to avoid. The analysis also can be found in Chapter 4 and in Box 3.7. In this section
illustrates that a combination of methods may be needed to we briefly give an overview of the Comprehensive Wealth
fully answer to a given policy question (see 3.3.1.3). Further approach as a methodology to account for nature’s values.
material on choices in valuation processes can be found in
Section 3.4. The concept of Comprehensive Wealth (CW) is a reflection
of how values measured in terms of well-being and
3.3.4.1 Trade-offs and complementarities prosperity of a country depend not just on the returns
from physical and human capital, as reflected in typical
in economic valuation initiatives
national accounts, but also on environmental and social
In this section we use the 3Rs framework to highlight trade- capital. The reason Comprehensive Wealth is proposed
offs and complementarities between three main high level is that using this concept in valuation, well-being at any
Box 3 7 Natural capital accounting: the system of environmental economic accounting

(SEEA).
Natural capital accounting applies economic and accounting Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and through ongoing testing
principles to the description and management of the and development by statistical agencies. More recent work
environment with the aim of aiding environmental and economic has shown the connection to monitoring progress towards
decision-making. This requires measuring biophysical aspects the Sustainable Development Goals and the targets of the
(quantities and qualities) as well as socio-economic values, Convention on Biological Diversity (see 4.6.4.2, Chapter 4).
assigning them to aspects of the natural world and recognising
the connections to (groups of) individuals and businesses. The Its origins lie in adopting and extending the accounting
System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) is the principles, classifications and definitions of the System of
statistical framework endorsed by the United Nations Statistical National Accounts that are used to underpin economic
Commission as the way in which natural capital accounting statistics, including gross domestic product. While originally
can be supported by official statistics (United Nations et al., focused on adjusting measures of gross domestic product
2014a; 2014b). for the effects of depletion and degradation, the focus of the
System of Environmental-Economic Accounting has broadened
This summary gives an overview of the System of Environmental- to cover the general integration of physical and monetary
Economic Accounting and its role in integrating data to inform environmental and economic data. As a statistical standard,
discussion of the connections between people and the the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting pursues
environment, pointing to some main opportunities and challenges. the consistent comparison and exchange of data and aims to
underpin a range of applications, including the derivation of
The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting develops coherent and consistent indicators that reflect the impacts and
internationally agreed concepts and definitions pertaining to the dependencies of the economy on the environment.
measurement of environmental flows (e.g., water, energy, waste
and emissions); environmental transactions (e.g., environmental The broadening of the measurement and valuation context
taxes and expenditure); natural resources (e.g., minerals, using accounting principles builds on a range of literature
timber, fish) and ecosystems and the services they provide. (Banzhaf & Boyd, 2012; Dasgupta, 2009; Haines-Young &
Work on the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Potschin, 2010; Keith et al., 2013; Obst et al., 2016; Vanoli,
was initiated in the 1970s gaining momentum from the Earth 1995) and consists of several advances:
211
Box 3 7
First, the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting extends value perspectives. While the System of Environmental-
the definition of assets to incorporate all biophysical components Economic Accounting does have a specific approach to
irrespective of their degree of economic ownership or flows monetary valuation based on exchange values, that supports
of benefits in monetary terms. This broadening in biophysical integration with the national accounts (and excludes consumer
terms provides the basis for recording a more complete range surplus), it does not have an aim to provide a “single value
of interactions between the environment and the economy and of nature”. At the same time, the System of Environmental-
provides physical measures to complement monetary valuations. Economic Accounting organisation of data on ecosystem
More recently, this scope has expanded to capture ecosystem extent, ecosystem condition and the physical flows of water
extent (area) and condition (ecological integrity) across the and energy allow moving beyond a narrow market exchange
terrestrial, freshwater, subterranean and marine realms. view of accounting.
Second, in accounting for ecosystems, the System of Third, there is a need for further research on several aspects
Environmental-Economic Accounting incorporates a wider of measurement and valuation. Through the revision process
scope of benefits than conventional measures of income and of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting
production by including a range of ecosystem services. These Experimental Ecosystem Accounting manual (2018-2021),
services include air filtration, climate regulation, flood mitigation significant progress has been made in harmonising definitions
and amenity-related services that are commonly non-market of ecosystem units, types and qualities, in providing
services and hence not explicitly identified or valued in the comparable definitions for ecosystem services, and in
national accounts. The extended accounting framing builds on discussing monetary valuation techniques for integration with
recognition of the exchange value of these services, as well as the national accounts. Work will be needed to refine and
the flows in physical terms, and hence could support reporting test these areas, as well as advancing the measurement of
on measures of ecosystem degradation and enhancement in concepts such as ecosystem capacity, and the use of detailed
response to human uses of the environment, aspects which are spatial data to support both local, national and global decision-
missing from the current national accounts. making processes.
Third, progress in the implementation of the System of From a valuation perspective, the System of Environmental-
Environmental-Economic Accounting, especially concerning Economic Accounting aims to broaden traditional accounting
ecosystem accounting, has highlighted the importance of spatial by adding part of natures’ values to an instrument currently
data and local context. The organisation of data at detailed inconsiderate of these values. Beyond the use of the System
spatial scales supports recognition of a larger diversity of of Environmental-Economic Accounting’s biophysical data to
contexts in the supply and use of ecosystem services and can assess non-monetary values, the future development of pilot
improve understanding of environmental and social outcomes. and experimental accounts might provide complementary
data reflecting additional monetary value perspectives
However, several on-going challenges exist in advancing currently not reflected in an accounting context, such
implementation of the System of Environmental- as consumer surplus and welfare values, non-use and
Economic Accounting: relational values.
First, there is the need to move beyond the compilation The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting is a major
of accounts to the use of accounting data in applications program with a very high potential impact. The step from
and decision-making processes. This will require ongoing ‘market values of economic assets’ to ‘market and non-market
engagement with a variety of users to realize and values of economic and natural assets’ may seem small from
demonstrate the added value of the System of Environmental- the perspective of value plurality. However, this approach to
Economic Accounting. accounting might further challenge the standard application
of economic theory, could lead to transforming standards for
Second, there is a need for the System of Environmental- environmental measurement and may pave the way to a more
Economic Accounting to build links to the discussion of diverse plural accounting of nature-human relations.
given time is determined by the returns to national wealth. Biodiversity argues that global growth is being maintained
Comprehensive Wealth is therefore intrinsically related by erosion of regenerative natural capital and biodiversity
to sustainable economic development (SED) (Hamilton (Dasgupta, 2021). Since the 1970s, economists have
& Hepburn, 2017). Current measures of economic shown that sustainable economic development is strongly
performance, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), do related to comprehensive wealth. They conclude, that if
not reflect sustainability, as it is a measure of economic comprehensive wealth goes up, future well-beings will not
flows (see 2.2). It is possible that gross domestic product decline, and if comprehensive wealth declines, future well-
grows over time solely as a result of running down the beings are certain to decline (Arrow et al., 2012; Hamilton &
national wealth. The Dasgupta Review on the Economics of Clemens, 1999). Using a comprehensive wealth approach
212
to valuation of nature therefore has direct policy implications: China, Brazil, India and Venezuela using publicly available
i) Governments should change measures of performance to data. The headline results show that typical gross domestic
include measures of comprehensive wealth; ii) natural capital product growth is woefully inaccurate as a measure of long-
should be valued and monitored over time; and, iii) rents run well-being, and that growth in comprehensive wealth
from non-renewable resources (which value the decline in while largely positive, is composed of negative growth in
this form of capital) should be reinvested in other forms of natural wealth coupled with positive growth in human, health
capital to maintain Comprehensive Wealth (e.g., Barbier, and occasionally manufactured capital (Arrow et al., 2012).
2019; Dasgupta, 2021). The Dasgupta Review made measurement and reporting
of Comprehensive Wealth a central policy recommendation
The valuation of natural capital is therefore essential for for living within the limits of environmental constraints
these policy recommendations to work and needs input (Dasgupta, 2021).
from both natural scientists and economists. However, there
are severe data limitations, particularly for the measurement The terms Inclusive Wealth and Comprehensive Wealth
of biodiversity. have the same theoretical underpinnings: that non-declining
wealth means non-declining inter-temporal well-being
In practice, several studies have aimed to operationalize over time, but historically the need for different terminology
the comprehensive wealth approach. Among the empirical reflects different means of measuring and valuing national
studies that demonstrate the theoretical principles, early wealth. Comprehensive Wealth is the term used by the
work by Hamilton and Clemens (1999) placed monetary World Bank and measures wealth across manufactured,
values on natural resource depletion in developing countries, human, natural and other capitals by calculating the present
albeit limited to non-renewable resources, deforestation and value of future consumption that will not reduce national
CO2 emissions. Their review showed a mixed picture for the wealth: i.e., sustainable consumption (see e.g., Hamilton &
period 1970-1993 in which ‘Genuine Savings’ (aggregate Hartwick, 2005; World Bank, 2006). The Inclusive Wealth
savings minus natural resource depletion) was negative measure proposed by Arrow et al. (2012) and used by the
for many countries; and Comprehensive Wealth declined United Nations in its wealth accounting (UNU-IHDP & UNEP,
and growth in incomes was therefore unsustainable. 2014), values national wealth and its capital stocks directly by
Particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle Eastern estimating physical units of capital and multiplying them by
states, reinvestment of resource rents was insufficient to a social price. In essence, Comprehensive Wealth uses the
maintain overall wealth, and natural resource depletion present value of a flow of benefits to estimate national wealth,
was excessive. In a counterfactual analysis, Atkinson and the latter directly estimates the stock of national wealth. The
Hamilton (2016) show a similar scenario in the UK with different approaches to measurement have different practical
respect to North Sea Oil. They show that had the United implications concerning data requirements and the treatment
Kingdom invested its resource rents during the 1970s and of Intangible Capital like Human Capital. Yet as attempts to
1980s rather than consumed rents to finance tax breaks, its measure sustainability they are similar policy proposals.
national wealth would now be much higher than it is today.
Similar evidence can be found in Hamilton and de Ruta Polasky & Dampha (2021) provided a review of the
(2006) who analyse a selection of countries to illustrate how Inclusive Wealth approach as an indicator for sustainable
simple aggregate savings rules, including investing resource development. They concluded that estimating a full value
rents (the Hartwick Rule (Hartwick, 1977)) would have left of inclusive wealth in practice would be near infeasible
many countries with larger comprehensive wealth. The due to data demands and that ‘no current measure of
Comprehensive Wealth literature illustrates the importance inclusive wealth is in fact fully inclusive’. They propose that
of long-term thinking and how important it is for long-term combining a semi-inclusive wealth indicator with indicators
well-being to value natural resource depletion and then of changes in critical natural capital could provide a set of
invest equivalent amounts to sustain wealth. Helm (2015) signals to decision-makers of whether society is following a
makes the case that natural capital should also be the sustainable development trajectory.
recipient of investment for this purpose.
In conclusion, the theoretical concepts underpinning the
The World Bank’s (2010) comprehensive wealth accounts Comprehensive Wealth/Inclusive Wealth approach are
were estimated across the world including natural resource well established. The empirical examples are connected
wealth: agricultural land, urban land, pasture land, energy to biodiversity through the land and forest resources that
and mineral resources, forest resources and protected are included in the operationalization of the concepts.
areas. Natural resource wealth was found to make up 25% However, the approach does not directly evaluate the
of national wealth in poor countries. A broader theory and impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services of declining
set of results can be found in Arrow et al. (2012) in which natural capital stocks nor value these changes (Polasky &
Comprehensive Wealth measures, which include a broader Dampha, 2021). The overall wealth accounting initiatives
array of categories, are calculated for the United States, are important steps in accounting for the composition of
213
Table 3 11 Comparison of the relative merits of The Economics of Ecosystems and

Biodiversity, United Nations System of Environmental Economic Accounting (UN
SEEA EA) and the Inclusive Wealth approach using the 3R criteria (Relevance,
Robustness and Resources).

Capturing diverse values in Ensuring reliable (accurate and Resource requirements
multiple socio-ecological valid) and fair representation of for capacity building and
contexts stakeholders resources for conducting
valuation
Fair Conducting
Integrating economic initiatives
System of • Instrumental values • Standardized methodologies are • High initial resource requirements
Environmental • Physical and monetary exchange reliable for the purpose of national (geoinformatics and geospatial
Economic values accounting data, location specific economic
Accounting (UN • Applied to ecosystem extent, • Representative at national sectoral data)
SEEA EA) condition, ecosystem services level, but not representative of all • High implementation costs (annual
• Applied to thematic accounts for local values at local level, despite compilation at national level)
carbon, biodiversity, oceans and high biophysical resolution (lower
urban areas spatial granularity for monetary
methods)
How to improve • Complementary accounts bridge • Improve availability of data at • Capacity building and developing
the 3Rs to welfare values, inclusive national level collaboration among national data
wealth, corporate natural capital • Validate using local data holders, researchers, statistical
accounting • Higher spatial resolution of agency compilers and modelers
monetary valuation methods and ultimate users.
• Uncertainty analysis for aggregates • Standardization and automation of
workflows
Strenght of the
evidence
The Economics • Instrumental values but allow • Allow prioritization of stakeholder • Can be designed to resource
of Ecosystems assessment of multiple types needs through participatory availability to some extent
and Biodiversity • Allow accounting for social, design of the valuation • Each valuation process is
cultural and political context of • Design valuation to assess the adapted to the policy question but
decision-making impact on different groups optimization of resource use can
• Design valuation to answer • Some inconsistencies in value come from training of valuators,
specifically to policy needs indicators, as different methods, building of core data sets for a
different value concepts region/country and use of best
practice guidelines
How to improve • Use of complementary methods • Engagement with local • Open access to environmental
the 3Rs • Using pilots routinely to ensure stakeholder in design of valuation and socio-economic data,
relevance to stakeholders • Engagement with policy and training of valuators, and
• Following reporting standards to scientific experts in design of widely accessible best practice
allow others to use learn from the valuation guidelines
experiences • Adherence to best practice
guidelines and updating of
practices
Strenght of the
evidence
Comprehensive/ • Instrumental values • Theoretically consistent welfare • High initial resource requirements
Inclusive Wealth • Includes social capital (education, indicators to acquire data on natural
health) • Includes dynamics of both resource stocks but can build
• Mainly applied to renewable and the economy and the natural on UN System of Environmental
non-renewable natural resources resources Economic Accounting (UN SEEA
(stocks and flows) • Represents all sectors and EA) efforts
• Country scale demographic groups included in • Rely on data that exists in many
national counts countries
How to improve • Operationalizing the approach • Improve data sources and • Build on UN System of
the 3Rs represent a wider range of natural Environmental Economic
resources and biodiversity Accounting data sources and
considerations infrastructure
Strenght of the
evidence
214
economic development and understanding its sustainability 3.4.1 Valuation is a step-wise

in terms of well-being and the natural environment. process
Inclusive Wealth accounting goes beyond gross domestic
product to look at stocks rather than flows and provides a The valuation process can be summarised into five steps.
more comprehensive and longer-term perspective of the Valuation is often seen as a merely technical process of
consequences of economic activities. choosing and applying a method fit-for-purpose, but the
assessment clearly shows that the relevance, robustness,
In Table 3.11 we compare the relative strength of the and resource-efficiency of a valuation depends heavily on
three initiatives. The primary objective is to highlight how the normative and political context of the valuation and
complementary approaches can support diverse needs. positionality of the valuator. In that sense, a ‘valuation’
The initiatives can also provide data sources that jointly be is the entire 5-step process. Choices made in each step
used for multiple purposes and therefore reduce the overall affect the next step and go on to affect the final quality of
resource needs for valuation (Annex 3.14). the valuation. The steps are also interacting rather than fully
discrete steps through time. Following these steps explicitly,
The analysis shows that the initiatives are complementary. and transparently reporting on the choices made, improves
The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB), the quality of the information and processes that valuation
as a flexible policy evaluation tool, is more adaptable to generates, and covers key considerations of the valuation
emerging decision-making needs. United Nations system of process. The steps are:
environmental economic accounting (UN SEEA EA) provides
an opportunity to link biophysical ecosystem accounts to Step 1 – Construct a legitimate process. This
national economic accounts and improving the information requires that the providers of valuation information
for decision-makers to do nature valuation. Inclusive wealth are explicitly defined, and that there is transparency
has its strength in the theoretical consistency for measuring about how a robust valuation is ensured particularly in
sustainable economic development. However, data regard to representativeness or participation. Whenever
shortages are still hindering full implementation in practice. relevant, they should be informed or engaged in the
upcoming valuation study.
Step 2 – Define the purpose and intended use of

3.4 GUIDANCE FOR the valuation outputs. While the purpose is often clear
from the decision context or it is defined by the socio-
VALUATION PRACTICE environmental problem that is triggering the valuation,
the valuation process can often benefit from fine tuning
Previous sections have demonstrated that there are no and (re)defining this purpose once stakeholders have
perfect methods; that – for a comprehensive valuation – been engaged in the first step.
several complementary methods will usually need to be
combined; and that a careful play of balancing trade-offs Step 3 – Establish the scope of the valuation. This
between relevance, robustness and resources is inevitable. requires defining thematic and geographic boundaries
Moreover, since the purpose of the valuation drives many of of the valuation and ultimately, determining who can
the method choices that must be made, and context-specific be considered as a legitimate and relevant stakeholder
conditions influence what works or cannot work in a given of the valuation process. This step helps clarify whose
situation, it would be imprudent to suggest that clear-cut values are being represented and helps identify which
recipes exist that match methods to purpose and contexts. stakeholders (and thus, whose values) might have
been omitted in the first and second steps. Feasibility
Hence, this section combines the lessons learned from constraints – in terms of financial, human and technical
the assessment of methods conducted in this chapter to resources – are evaluated at this stage. This step
provide general, yet practical guidelines aimed at avoiding interacts with step 1 and 2.
irreversible or expensive social, financial or environmental
errors. The aim of the guidelines is to ensure that – for Step 4 – Choose and apply the valuation methods.
different contexts and purposes – the valuation process With the purpose of the valuation clear and having
is designed to adequately inform decision-making and identified the diversity of interests and stakeholders
policy design for nature while also accounting for the at play and being aware of the resource limitations
3Rs. The guidelines for valuation synthesise theoretical impinging on whatever process or outcomes are
principles of valuation identified in this chapter into clear decided upon, the appropriate methods can be
and useful valuation questions to guide valuation experts or selected. In most cases, a combination of nature-based,
commissioners of valuation studies in a stepwise manner. statement-based, and behaviour-based are needed and
The valuation process is therefore presented in five steps. their findings can be brought together with integration
215
methods. This step requires acute awareness of the must be secured. While it is important to consider all groups
limitations of certain methods and approaches, of the and communities and their diverse values, dependencies
processes that have been developed to counter some on nature are usually disproportionate across groups in
of the limitations and designing around those. any given society. Access to the valuation process needs
to account for existing and historical differences. Moreover,
Step 5 – Articulate results in decision-making. the power to influence decisions on what counts, and thus
The findings of valuation results need to be presented which values and whose are prioritised, also varies strongly
in a way that makes them easy to understand and to between social groups. Lastly, some groups (such as past
uptake into decision-making. This requires effective and future generations) and entities (such as animals,
and transparent communication of the outputs and mother nature and other non-human beings) do not have
honest reflection of the limitations and omissions of a direct way to communicate their values, hence their
the valuation process. Importantly, any factors that representatives might be needed (e.g., the elderly, historians,
pose risks to the uptake of valuation results should be religious and spiritual leaders, the youth).
explicitly reported.
Step 1 – Valuation Questions – constructing a
For each step, a set of valuation questions are provided
legitimate process
to guide the valuator along with a short description of the
valuation principles that apply. References are provided to Step 1 relates mainly to relevance and robustness
the section in the chapter where more detailed information is consideration. What is considered to be the community
available (Figure 3.43). of justice, how is fair representation ensured (see 3.3.2.3)
and which forms of knowledge need to be included (see
3.4.1.1 Step 1- constructing a legitimate 3.3.1.2). Furthermore, step 1 designs the procedures for
transparent reporting. Assessment questions to consider in
process
step 1 are:
Valuation of (changes in) nature departs from the
fundamental notion that people and communities depend on 1. Who is dependent on the (changes in) nature
nature (albeit to different extents) and these dependencies considered (people, social groups, communities)?
STEP 1 • Who is dependent on the (changes in) nature considered?

CONSTRUCT A LEGITIMATE • What are the levels of dependance of these?
• What are their levels of influence and power on the decision?
PROCESS
• Which processes and inclusiveness measures need to be achieved?
STEP 2 • Why is the valuation conducted?

DEFINE THE PURPOSE OF • Which decision type(s) are aimed for?
THE VALUATION
STEP 3 • Which broad and specific value types are important to consider (step 1)?
BOUNDING THE SCOPE OF • Which value types are relevant to the decision (step 1, 2)?
• Which expertises are needed to realize valuations for these value types?
THE VALUATION
• Which resources (time, financial, technical) are available?
STEP 4 • Which methods are relevant?

METHOD SELECTION • Which methods are robust?
AND APPLICATION • Which methods are affordable?
STEP 5 • How can results be used?

ARTICULATING RESULTS • How can’t they be used?
• What are uncertainties re. relevance and robustness?
IN DECISION MAKING
• Which risks do these uncertainties entail?
Figure 3 43 Valuation process depicted in 5 steps.

The choice and application of an appropriate (set of) valuation methods (step 4) is embedded within this larger process.
216
2. What are the levels of dependence of these people/ decision-making process. If goal and purpose are not
communities on nature? explicitly stated when commencing with a valuation, it is
impossible to assess which valuation is relevant. Based on
3. What are their levels of influence and power on the decisions in step 1, the goals and purpose of the valuation
decision regarding nature? can be stated, communicated towards or deliberated
together with the relevant people, groups or communities.
4. Which groups of people (and non-human beings) need Transparency in this step mitigates the risk for valuations
to be distinguished? to be conducted or commissioned in ways that will result
in outputs not being used, or even reproduce or aggravate
5. Whose values need to be represented? injustices that the valuation aimed to reduce. Some
important questions to define the purpose of valuation are
6. Which people/groups/communities need to participate the following:
in the valuation process?
1. Why is the valuation conducted?
7. Which processes and inclusiveness measures need to
be achieved? 2. Which decision type(s) does the valuation aim to inform?
Participation level is based on the depth of stakeholder 3. How will valuation results target these decisions?
engagement and the presence of actions to remove
barriers for inclusion. The lowest level captures data and 4. Who will be involved in decisions regarding these
information coming from stakeholders, while at the highest questions (adapt step 1 if necessary)?
level, stakeholders are actively involved in reviewing and
validating outputs or processes. The representation level The chapter has structured the evidence on why valuation is
(Figure 3.38) depicts how diverse groups of stakeholders conducted, i.e., why is it relevant, by synthesising valuation
are targeted and recognized in the process as well as how goals into whether they seek to improve human well-being,
the presentation of values is disaggregated for these groups. ecological quality or justice or broader IPLC principles (see
3.2). Often a valuation has several goals and identifying
In cases where valuation will be conducted in indigenous these are helpful for targeting the activity. Furthermore,
peoples and local community territories (land and sea), deciding how the valuation is intended to enable decision-
numerous guidelines exist on how to conduct ethically making is also essential for better design of valuation. Is
responsible research that takes into account the IPLC the valuation intended only to serve as informative, or is
context where one is working (Annex 3.12). Some of these the valuation intended to support a decision-making itself,
guidelines are locally specific and provided by specific serving as a decisive support tool. Finally, the goal of the
indigenous peoples or local communities (for example, The valuation may also be to support the development of
Framework for Research Engagement with First Nation policy instruments. For further information on the purposes
(University of Manitoba, 2014), Metis, and Inuit Peoples, or of valuation (see 3.2.1.1 and 4.6). Defining the purpose
the San Code of Research Ethics (Chennels & Schroeder, of valuation is a prerequisite for deciding who should be
2017)), others are regional and include some communities involved (see 3.3.1.2, 3.3.2).
and indigenous groups while others are much broader and
represent many of them. A non-exhaustive list of existing 3.4.1.3 Step 3- scoping the valuation
guidelines for conducting research in indigenous and local
communities is provided in Annex 3.15. It is generally Once the process and purpose are clear, a decision is
recommended that one follows the most local guidelines needed on which values to cover with the valuation.
available and if those are missing, to apply the next level of Together with the involved stakeholders (or taking into
locally pertinent guidelines. In the absence of local, group- account the groups that need to be represented) a wide
based or national guidelines, the General principles for ethical inventory of relevant values can be made. Value typologies
conduct in human research (NHMRC & Australian Research such as the one from this assessment (see Chapter 2)
Council and Universities Australia, 2007) should be applied. can be used to cover the diversity of values and check
if no relevant values are overlooked. In this stage, it is
3.4.1.2 Step 2- defining the purpose of possible -based on the broad and specific value types
inventoried- that the purpose needs to be reformulated,
valuation
either to broaden it to include values, or to focus it to better
Valuations are initiated with a certain goal and purpose. In reflect the scope. This inventory then is confronted with
our chapter, goals are defined as broad societal ‘missions’ the available resources and expertise. Additional valuation
such as improving wellbeing, justice or nature itself, while expertise might be needed, and resources might need to be
purposes are the ‘way how’ valuations target a certain spread across experts in order to cover the required value
217
diversity. Resource availability might require concessions The illustrative cases – even if only concisely described –
to be made, either on relevance (e.g., excluding certain allow to distinguish different ways to answer the valuation
relevant value types) or robustness (e.g., choosing a quick questions in step 1, 2 and 3. While in reality, these answers
screening method rather than a resource-intensive one) (see can be elaborated and co-created with the relevant
step 4 below). Important guiding questions to define the stakeholders as inherent part of the valuation process,
scope of the valuation are the following: differences in participation level, type of information and
decision, and plurality level are clearly illustrated (see
1. Which broad and specific value types are important to Table 3.13).
the people considered (step 1)?
Based on the answers in Steps 1 to 3, the potential
2. Which value types are not relevant (enough) to the methods can be selected and applied. This is illustrated
people considered (step 1)? with the example table from Section 3.3.4 and the illustrated
cases and their level of available resources. Table 3.14
3. Which value types are relevant to the purpose of the demonstrates that adequate sets of methods differ strongly
valuation (step 2)? between valuation contexts. In reality, more nuanced
purpose definitions and resource descriptions applied
4. What kinds of expertise are needed to realize valuations over a larger set of available methods brought by different
for these value types? disciplines, through a more or less participatory process to
take this key decision for valuation.
5. Which resources (time, financial, technical) are available?
Step 4 operationalizes the trade-off between the 3Rs
3.4.1.4 Step 4- selecting and applying (see 3.3.4), but entails also a highly context-dependent
component. Deciding methods to fit the purpose, decision
valuation methods
types, involved values and actors, as well as process
It is only once the process, purpose and scope are clear, requirements, entails knowledge on methods’ inherent
that it becomes relevant to select adequate (sets of) features (see 3.2.2 on the review of different methods).
methods for valuation and to apply them. This step is However, methods’ inherent features are hard to distinguish
intertwined with the trade-off considerations regarding from context-specific application patterns, as methods can
available resources in step 3, but also needs to take into be combined or even recompiled into a mixed approach
account some inherent features of existing methods. This which combines several procedures (and disciplines)
step critically requires involving open-minded experts from to fit the context. As such, inherent shortcomings of
different disciplines to avoid disciplinary bias. Especially certain methods can be relieved (as well as strengths lost)
when judging on pros and cons of potential methods, it is depending on the way they are implemented in practice.
essential to recognize diversity of valuation methods and
approaches from different disciplines and traditions and 3.4.1.5 Step 5 – articulating the values for
recognize diverse types of evidence and ways to assess
decision-making
quality of valuations. The informed choice made in this
step has immediate and large implications on the valuation For a valuation to be successful, its results need to inform
results, and builds on the process, purpose and scoping and improve the decision that was originally envisaged.
steps. It is risky to skip these steps or leave them implicit, This uptake is dealt with in Chapter 4 of this assessment,
as the choice of method is then left to the person or group but it is an important step in the valuation process. The
which happens to have the authority to decide this, but – defined purpose (step 2), based on a legitimate and relevant
because of inevitable social or disciplinary bias – does not process (step 1) and defining the scope of the valuation
necessarily realise, recognize or represent the full extent of (step 3), provides relevant, robust and resource-efficient
value diversity entailed by the purpose. results (step 4).
In this section, the choice of methods that are appropriate Each of these choices, however, has a flip side: which actors
for different contexts and purposes is illustrated by five are not included, which aspects are not representative or
hypothetical examples that typify the sets of considerations participatory, which values are not targeted, and what are
and contexts that valuations must navigate (Table 3.12). shortcomings of the methods chosen. This has immediate
These cases demonstrate how diverse contexts lead to repercussions on how the results can be applied for their
different consolations of conditions that ultimately limit the purpose. More importantly, applying values beyond their
consolation of appropriate and adequate methods. Although purpose entails risks. Based on the illustration cases below,
the cases themselves are hypothetical, they build on the in particular the one referring to the Wollah indigenous
diversity of valuation cases (n = 1163) that were reviewed for territory, using the values of nature elicited for the beaver
this chapter. dam would risk creating a conflict. Also, applying the
218
Table 3 12 Illustrative example cases to illustrate valuation choices and method selection.
The case descriptions are inspired by the in-depth systematic literature review (n=1163); any resemblance with real life cases is
coincidental.
SPECIFIC CONTEXTS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CASE
Socio-political Socio-economic Resources for

Goal and purpose of the illustrative case Risk of conflicts
complexity impact valuation
Case A – “Humboldt Park”

Urban planning – Local authorities commission High
development of vision plan for multifunctional Low Low Low
green space in middle-class neighborhood
Case B – “Rain River”

Litigation – Court demands expertise for village High
court case against gravel extraction company for Low
downstream river bank erosion. Medium Medium
Case C – “Beaver Dam”

Natural Resource Use case – National Law High
requires socio-environmental impact assessment
for drinking water dam in uninhabited valley Medium Medium Medium
Case D – “Breton Airport”

Infrastructure development – valuation for NGO High High High
and grassroot organisation which contest airport Low
development in rural area
Case E – “Fancy Farm”

Payment for Ecosystem Services design
High
– Government commissioned design of
compensation scheme for farmers’ efforts to
Medium Medium Medium
mitigate landscape degradation in rural region
Case F – “Wollah Hunting”
Access to indigenous peoples’ territories – for High
necessary culling of top predator populations, Low Low Low
rangers or hunters need regulated access
Table 3 13 Potential responses for the valuation questions guiding Steps 1, 2 and 3 of the
valuation process, for each of the illustrative cases.
A D F
B C E
“Humboldt “Breton “Wollah
“Rain River” “Beaver Dam” “Fancy Farm”
Park” Airport” Hunting”
Step 1 – Medium: Low: Medium: Medium: High: High:

valuation Experts and Based on Experts, actors Authoritative Experts on Experts on
process => inhabitants authoritative from water and experts and local ecology, farming ecology,
experts nature sector experts economy and indigenous
participation
law, and local representatives
level farmers.
Step 2 – Accepted & Robust and Broad and Broad and Robust and Broad and
valuation legitimate; for focussed; for reliable; for accepted; for broad; for accepted;
purpose => design court ruling assessment campaigning effective and fair for respectful
design agreements
which info, for
what
Step 3 – Medium: Low: Medium: High: Medium: High:
valuation Specific local Specific Diverse Ecological values, Wellbeing, broad Broad values,
scope => ecological & damages, ecological, broad wellbeing values, ecological principles,
wellbeing values biophysical wellbeing values values values ecological values
Plurality level
processes
219
Table 3 14 Examples from the four method families, their main characteristics (see Table
3.10) and their selection for the six illustrative cases.
Capital “M”: main method; small caps “a”: potential additional method. Note that this illustration only includes the example
methods from Section 3.3.4: scores for the 3Rs are derived and summarised from Table 3.12. The illustrative method choice is
based on general context descriptions from the cases: in reality, the range of potential methods is much larger, and contextual
requirements more detailed.
Resources
Method Relevance Robustness
(affordability see
examples (see 3.3.1) (see 3.3.2)
3.3.3)
See 3.3.4 Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable Low Low time
to a to a wide when when fair data, and costs
A B C D E F
wide range of accurate representation skills and for the
range of contexts estimates of diverse software valuation
values are stakeholders is is
required is required required required
ES mapping
Medium High Medium Low Low High a a
Biodiversity
mapping Low Medium Medium Low Low Medium a a
Stated
preferences Medium High Medium Medium Medium Medium a a M a
Q sorts
Medium Medium Low Low Low Medium M
Revealed
preference Low Medium High Medium Low High a a
Livelihood
assessment Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium a a
Integrated
modelling Low Low Medium Low Low Medium M a
Participatory
mapping High High Low Low High Medium a M
MCDA
High High Medium Medium Medium Medium M
DIM
High Medium Low High Medium Medium M
Benefit
transfer Low Medium Low Low High High a
values of nature elicited in the Humboldt Park visioning to commissioning the valuation, the valuators and the
the Breton Airport conflict case risks to generate irrelevant diverse actors involved in it. This goes beyond transparent
information. Different decision-making stages and the role of communication of values and assumptions, and requires
valuation in supporting these stages can be characterised in engagement with the decision processes and actors in an
several ways (see 3.2.1.1 and 4.6). early stage. See Chapter 4 for further reading on uptake of
values in decision-making.
Effective and responsible uptake of value information in
decisions is a shared responsibility between the actors
220
3.5 CONCLUSIONS, that allowed grouping of a highly diverse list of methods
KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND based on some of their most basic characteristics (what
they assess and their information source). We found
RECOMMENDATIONS that, while there is no scarcity of methods (more than 50
distinct methods exist) available to conduct valuation, most
The assessment of valuation methods conducted in this valuation studies only apply one and because methods
chapter has provided answers to the six assessment are highly specific in terms of which values they are able to
questions outlined in Section 3.1. The six questions elicit, studies mostly fail to report on the full range of values
encapsulate the scope of Chapter 3 in terms of what it was at play. Given the diversity of methods and approaches,
supposed to assess (valuation methods) and the numerous and the specific limitations and strengths presented by
considerations of valuation that it was supposed to address each of them, combining different complementary methods
(the ability of methods to fulfil numerous societal goals). can ensure that valuations address diverse values and do
Here, we provide a concise description of how the questions so robustly. Method combinations require interdisciplinary
were answered and the responses for each based on the valuations teams, capacity building in methods to ensure
findings of the chapter. We also identify knowledge gaps proper applications and sensitivity to the appropriateness of
that were detected and make some recommendations for methods in different cultural and socio-economic contexts.
how to address them.
Assessment question 3: “Which values are elicited?” was
Assessment question 1: “Why is valuation undertaken?” implemented by applying the values typology introduced in
was answered by assessing the goals of applying valuation Chapters 1 and 2 on methods, i.e., we assessed the extent
methods, as well as the various purposes in decision- to which methods were used to elicit broad values, specific
making they aim to serve. We found that valuation is values and which value indicators were used. Additionally,
undertaken for a multitude of reasons, but primarily for we assessed whether methods could generate information
informative followed by decisive purposes, indicating that about live value frames and if they made reference to
valuations frequently aim to provide decision-makers with IPLC related principles or if they used or acknowledged
recommendations about the most desirable course of action knowledge systems from sources other than academia.
(Figure 3.14). However, published valuations are rarely We found that valuation studies have mostly focused on
linked to active decision-making processes suggesting assessing instrumental values, followed by intrinsic and
that the aim to inform is merely hypothetical and that the relational values.
information they generate is not channelled into decision-
making. Valuation studies do not sufficiently address this On the contrary, valuation in IPLC contexts is mostly
uptake gap, however, through reflective evaluation and focused on relational and intrinsic values, in line with most
recommendations of ways to connect studies to actual IPLC worldviews. Outside IPLC contexts, most methods
decisions. With the help of contributions from ILK experts, tend to be highly specific about the values that they can
we have been able to only scratch the surface on the nature elicit or articulate, highlighting the importance of mixing
of valuation in indigenous peoples and local communities. methods to capture the full range of values at play in
Further valuation work would benefit from linking directly any given situation. In many cases, however, despite the
to decision-making processes that require valuation. This versatility of methods to capture a wide range of values,
would also help identify the nature of barriers to uptake, their users only apply them to elicit one type of value.
particularly whether limitations to uptake are method- Knowledge gaps relate to both practical and theoretical
related or context-related. For this to happen, better challenges such as how to deal with representation aspects
collaborations between academia (the biggest producers when aggregating individually held values to the collective,
of valuation studies) and stakeholders associated with deliberating towards shared values, how to take the values
socio-environmental issues is needed. Valuation practice of future generations into account, and how to sum,
would also benefit from improved understanding of IPLC compare, or separate incommensurable value types. Ways
valuation through stronger collaborations with IPLC scholars to address some of these challenges have been developed
and communities to learn how their ways of valuation could for some methods, while other challenges contribute to
inform current valuation practice in non-IPLC contexts. some of the limitations of methods. Valuators need to
be well versed in both the potential and shortcoming of
Assessment question 2: “Which methods are applied?” methods to ensure that they harness the potential and are
was addressed by inventorying the methods and fully aware of the limitations of their findings.
approaches that were applied in 1163 valuation studies
between 1980 and 2020, stratified and randomly sampled Assessment question 4: “When and where are valuations
from a corpus of more than 79,000 valuation studies. undertaken?” was answered by assessing the global
To facilitate methods assessment, a cross-disciplinary distribution of valuation studies based on when, where, and
classification system was developed (the methods family) at which spatial and governance scales they were applied.
221
This included an assessment of which administrative, social issues, but also to incorporate adequate strategies to
and biophysical scales valuations have been done, and improve representativeness in studies. Knowledge gaps
the habitats they were conducted in. The valuation atlas relate to inadequate understanding of IPLC valuation and
represents the first exhaustive global literature review on the lack of reporting and standards regarding representation
distribution of valuations across a broad range of natural aspects of valuation.
and social science disciplines, informed by a broad and
interdisciplinary definition of valuation. Our findings show Assessment question 6: “How reliable and feasible
that, since the early 2000s, the practice of valuation has is valuation?” was approached by highlighting the
been gradually expanding globally. To date, one quarter of different ways that robustness is understood based on
valuation studies have been about understanding values perspectives and disciplinary framing and assessing the
associated with forest ecosystems followed by cultivated data requirements, skills needed, finance and time costs.
areas and freshwater habitats. More than half of the studies Consequently, we assessed the limitations of valuations
are highly localised generating information about a specific and the extent to which applications consider issues of
location or species and only 1% have a global outlook. In validity, consistency and transparency. Judging robustness
IPLC valuations, place and location of valuations is highly is contested, however: while some sources of evidence
relevant and the selection of where to undertake valuation emphasise legitimacy others emphasise theoretical
processes is usually assessed and prepared. Knowledge consistency and accuracy. Both aspects are important for
gaps associated with the spatial and administrative scales use and hence the impact of valuation. Practical guidance
of valuations relate to the need for better understanding the that is sensitive to the purpose of valuation could improve
discrepancies and relations between who commissions or the robustness of valuation. Robustness requirements vary
undertakes valuations and who is affected by the decisions between informative, decisive and technical purposes and
that the valuation is commissioned for. Current practice in guidelines for robust use should reflect this. This would
valuation suggests that valuation is usually conducted by increase the potential of valuation to reach the intended
the powerful with little to no meaningful participation of local goals and decrease the risk of (mis)informing decisions and
stakeholders, risking that valuations might not adequately producing perverse outcomes. With respect to resource
reflect the full range of values and perspectives at play in a requirements to judge the feasibility of valuation, such
given decision-making context (see Chapter 4). information is rarely reported and must thus be deduced
from the complexity of the methods used, the context of
Assessment question 5: Whose values are considered? studies, and the time taken to undertake valuations. As
This question was addressed by examining the a result, a very important knowledge gap is the lack of
inclusiveness of valuation methods in terms of whether information on feasibility and resources needed to perform
and how valuations considered and/or engaged relevant valuations for different purposes. This is very likely to
stakeholders (including IPLCs) and how valuations dealt represent an important barrier to the inclusion of valuations
with representation, power and justice issues. In more in decision-making processes.
than half of the studies, authors were not explicit about
whose values are represented in the study. Even though The chapter has gathered evidence from four global reviews,
valuations have become more participatory over time, tapping into various strands of academic literature, and
the engagement of stakeholders is still mostly basic and two global processes mobilising indigenous and local
extractive, with most studies that include stakeholders limit knowledge. While this provided a robust and in many
their engagement to data and information providers. This instances exhaustive body of evidence, some obvious
trend is particularly acute in valuation of IPLCs, risking that gaps and blindspots in our work must be noted. Firstly,
valuations perpetuate historical injustices. In an effort to by focusing almost exclusively on academic literature, we
counteract the trend, the chapter committed to reporting have not captured the large body of knowledge on valuation
on IPLC valuation, only to find that it is a research topic and valuation methods and approaches that has been
that has barely gathered traction in the field of valuation. generated outside of academia. Some valuation practice
Integrated and statement-based valuation methods hold (e.g., conducted by the business sector, to assess health,
promise for engaging with stakeholders more meaningfully or to address conflict resolution) is partially addressed in
and ensuring they contribute to all steps of valuation design, the chapter. However, a myriad more groups and actors
implementation and interpretation. A large proportion conduct valuation and report it in non-academic literature.
of studies do not provide information on whether the Additionally, because we focused on English-language
stakeholders they worked with are representative of literature, and that which is contained in journals indexed
all actors with stakes, and even fewer reveal how they by Scopus and Web of Science, we have limited from our
addressed issues of power and justice. The robustness of assessment valuation knowledge and experiences reported
existing valuations is hugely undermined by an absence to in languages other than English, or that have been reported
report or adequately address these issues. Future valuation in unindexed journals or journals from other indices. Given
needs to train valuation experts to not only report on these that IBPES assessments cannot undertake new research,
222
the extent to which we could include knowledge about

IPLC valuation has been sorely limited; we acknowledge
that the 26 essays on IPLC valuation informing this chapter
and the ILK Dialogues that were conducted during the
values assessment cannot be generalised beyond the
communities that were consulted in the Dialogues or those
who are described in the essays. We also acknowledge that
the inclination to compare what is observed or described
in IPLC valuations to what is seen elsewhere can seem like
an attempt to validate indigenous and local knowledge by
imposing western science worldviews and frameworks.
This was by no means our intention. On the contrary, we
hope that the coincidences observed across cultures and
worldviews help demonstrate the commonalities of valuation
shared across humanity and that this invites desire for
collaboration and intercultural dialogue.
Finally, while assessment findings and patterns assessed

are situated at a global and general level, the chapter has
also provided guidance for valuation, which – despite
inevitably situated on a general level – provides clear
principles and concerns to be taken into account by various
actors active in valuation, from valuation professionals, to
local-to-global decision-makers commissioning valuation
studies, to experts evaluating and reviewing valuation
studies or policymakers using valuation results to underpin
or justify decisions.
223
THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON THE DIVERSE VALUES AND VALUATION OF NATURE
REFERENCES
Acharya, R. P., Maraseni, T., & Cockfield, Policy, 26, 12. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Arnberger, A., & Eder, R. (2011a). Exploring
G. (2019). Global trend of forest ecosystem j.1465-7287.2007.00066.x the Heterogeneity of Rural Landscape
services valuation – An analysis of Preferences: An Image-Based Latent
publications. Ecosystem Services, 39, Altbach, P. G. (2007). The Imperial Tongue: Class Approach. Landscape Research,
100979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. English as the Dominating Academic 36(1), 19-40.
ecoser.2019.100979 Language. Economic and Political Weekly,
42(36), 3608-3611. Arnberger, A., & Eder, R. (2011b). The
Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., & Williams, influence of age on recreational trail
M. (1994). Combining Revealed and Ambrose-Oji, B., & Pagella, T. (2012). preferences of urban green-space visitors:
Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Spatial analysis and prioritisation of cultural A discrete choice experiment with digitally
Environmental Amenities. Journal ecosystem services: A review of methods calibrated images. Journal of Environmental
of Environmental Economics and (p. 54) [Research report, Forest research]. Planning and Management, 54(7), 891-
Management, 26(3), 271-292. https://doi. Alice Holt Lodge Farnham, Surrey. 908. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.20
org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1017 10.539875
Ammon, U. (2012). Linguistic inequality
Adams, H., Adger, W. N., Ahmad, S., and its effects on participation in scientific Arrow, K. J. (1950). A Difficulty in the
Ahmed, A., Begum, D., Matthews, Z., discourse and on global knowledge Concept of Social Welfare. Journal of
Rahman, M. M., Nilsen, K., Gurney, G. accumulation – With a closer look at the Political Economy, 58(4), 328-346. https://
G., & Streatfield, P. K. (2020). Multi- problems of the second-rank language doi.org/10.1086/256963
dimensional well-being associated with communities. Applied Linguistics Review,
economic dependence on ecosystem 3(2), 333-355. https://doi.org/10.1515/ Arrow, K. J., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L.
services in deltaic social-ecological systems applirev-2012-0016 H., Mumford, K. J., & Oleson, K. (2012).
of Bangladesh. Regional Environmental Sustainability and the measurement of
Change, 20(2), 42. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Andersen, T., & Poppel, B. (2008). wealth. Environment and Development
s10113-020-01620-x Living Conditions in the Arctic. In Economics, 17(3), 317-353. https://doi.
M. Stankovitch (Ed.), Indicators relevant org/10.1017/S1355770X12000137
Adem Esmail, B., & Geneletti, D. (2018). for indigenous peoples: A resource book.
Multi-criteria decision analysis for nature Tebtebba Foundation. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer,
conservation: A review of 20 years E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993).
of applications. Methods in Ecology Andreoni, J., & Bernheim, D. B. (2009). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent
and Evolution, 9(1), 42-53. https://doi. Social Image and the 50-50 Norm: A Valuation. 67.
org/10.1111/2041-210X.12899 Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of
Audience Effects. Econometrica, 77(5), Assembly of First Nations (AFN). (2006).
Adler, M. D. (2016). Benefit–Cost Analysis 1607-1636. https://doi.org/10.3982/ First Nations’ Wholistic Approach to
and Distributional Weights: An Overview. ECTA7384 Indicators. Report Meeting on Indigenous
Review of Environmental Economics Peoples and Indicators of Well-Being, 22-23
and Policy, 10(2), 264-285. https://doi. Andrew, M. E., Wulder, M. A., Nelson, T. March 2006. Aboriginal Policy Research
org/10.1093/reep/rew005 A., & Coops, N. C. (2015). Spatial data, Conference. Ottawa. https://caid.ca/
analysis approaches, and information needs AFNUNIndWelBei2006.pdf
Agrawal, A. (2002). Indigenous knowledge for spatial ecosystem service assessments:
and the politics of classification. International A review. GIScience & Remote Sensing, Athayde, S. (2014). Introduction: Indigenous
Social Science Journal, 54(173), 277-281. 52(3), 344-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/154 Peoples, Dams and Resistance. Tipití:
81603.2015.1033809 Journal of The Society for the Anthropology
Albert, C., Galler, C., Hermes, J., Neuendorf, of Lowland South America, 12(2), 13.
F., von Haaren, C., & Lovett, A. (2016). Anthoff, D., & Emmerling, J. (2019).
Applying ecosystem services indicators Inequality and the Social Cost of Carbon. Atkinson, G., Groom, B., Hanley, N., &
in landscape planning and management: Journal of the Association of Environmental Mourato, S. (2018). Environmental Valuation
The ES-in-Planning framework. Ecological and Resource Economists, 6(2), 31. https:// and Benefit-Cost Analysis in U.K. Policy.
Indicators, 61, 100-113. https://doi. doi.org/10.1086/701900 Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 9(1), 97-
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.029 119. https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2018.6
Anthoff, D., & Tol, R. S. J. (2010). On
Aldred, R., Elliott, B., Woodcock, J., & international equity weights and national Atkinson, G., & Hamilton, K. (2016). Asset
Goodman, A. (2017). Cycling provision decision making on climate change. Accounting, Fiscal Policy and the UK’s
separated from motor traffic: A systematic Journal of Environmental Economics and Oil and Gas Resources, Past and Future.
review exploring whether stated preferences Management, 60(1), 14-20. https://doi. Centre for Climate Change Economics and
vary by gender and age. Transport Reviews, org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.04.002 Policy, 280, 30.
37(1), 29-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441
647.2016.1200156 Antunes, A. P., Castro Moreira, I., & Atran, S. (1985). The Nature of Folk-
Medeiros Massarani, L. (2018). Local Botanical Life Forms. American
Allen, B. P., & Loomis, J. B. (2008). The collaborators in Henry Walter Bates’s Anthropologist, New Series, 87(2), 298-315.
decision to use benefit transfer or conduct Amazonian Expedition (1848- 1859).
original valuation. Contemporary Economic Viaggiatori, 1(1), 382-400.
224
Bagstad, K. J., Semmens, D. J., Waage, Barbier, E. B. (2019). The concept of natural Economics, 48(2), 177-218. https://doi.
S., & Winthrop, R. (2013). A comparative capital. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, org/10.1007/s10640-010-9418-x
assessment of decision-support tools 35(1), 23.
for ecosystem services quantification Battiste, M., & Henderson, J. Y. (2000).
and valuation. Ecosystem Services, Barnaud, C., & van Paassen, A. (2013). What is Indigenous knowledge. In
5, 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Equity, Power Games, and Legitimacy: Protecting Indigenous knowledge and
ecoser.2013.07.004 Dilemmas of Participatory Natural Resource heritage: A global challenge (pp. 35-56).
Management. Ecology and Society, 18(2),
Bagstad, K. J., Semmens, D. J., & art21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05459- Batty, E. (2009). Reflections on the
Winthrop, R. (2013). Comparing approaches 180221 use of oral history techniques in social
to spatially explicit ecosystem service research. People, Place & Policy Online,
modeling: A case study from the San Barnes, C., Claus, R., Driessen, P., Ferreira 3(2), 109-121. https://doi.org/10.3351/
Pedro River, Arizona. Ecosystem Services, Dos Santos, M. J., George, M. A., & Van ppp.0003.0002.0004
5, 40-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Laerhoven, F. (2017). Uniting forest and
ecoser.2013.07.007 livelihood outcomes? Analyzing external Baumgärtner, S., Klein, A. M., Thiel, D., &
actor interventions in sustainable livelihoods Winkler, K. (2015). Ramsey Discounting
Bagstad, K. J., Villa, F., Johnson, G. in a community forest management context. of Ecosystem Services. Environmental
W., & Voigt, B. (2011). ARIES – Artificial International Journal of the Commons, and Resource Economics, 61(2), 273-
Intelligence for Ecosystem Services: A guide 11(1), 532. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.750 296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-
to models and data, version 1.0. ARIES 9792-x
report Series No.1. The Aries Consortium. Bartkowski, B., & Lienhoop, N. (2019).
Deliberative Monetary Valuation. Baveye, P. C., Baveye, J., & Gowdy, J.
Bai, Y., Wong, C. P., Jiang, B., Hughes, In B. Bartkowski & N. Lienhoop, (2013). Monetary valuation of ecosystem
A. C., Wang, M., & Wang, Q. (2018). Oxford Research Encyclopedia of services: It matters to get the timeline right.
Developing China’s Ecological Redline Policy Environmental Science. Oxford University Ecological Economics, 95, 231-235. http://
using ecosystem services assessments for Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.009
land use planning. Nature Communications, acrefore/9780199389414.013.595
9(1), 3034. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467- Beauvais, E., & Baechtiger, A. (2016).
018-05306-1 Bartkowski, B., Lienhoop, N., & Taking the Goals of Deliberation Seriously: A
Hansjürgens, B. (2015). Capturing the Differentiated View on Equality and Equity in
Bakker, P. (2020). Making stakeholder complexity of biodiversity: A critical Deliberative Designs and Processes. Journal
capitalism real and rewarding. World review of economic valuation studies of of Public Deliberation, 12.
Business Council for Sustainable biological diversity. Ecological Economics,
Development (WBCSD). 113, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Bello, C., Ruiz Agudelo, C. A., & Madriñan-
ecolecon.2015.02.023 Valderrama, L. F. (2014). Valuation of the
Balasubramanian, M. (2019). Economic ecosystem services in the Colombian
value of regulating ecosystem services: A Barton, D. (2007). How Much Is Enough? Andes. The benefit transfer method: A
comprehensive at the global level review. The Value Of Information From Benefit meta-analysis. Executive Summary (N.o 4;
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Transfers In A Policy Context. In S. Navrud Capital Natural de Colombia, p. 30).
191(10), 616. https://doi.org/10.1007/ & R. Ready (Eds.), Environmental Value Conservacion Internacional.
s10661-019-7758-8 Transfer: Issues and Methods (Vol. 9, pp.
261-282). Springer Netherlands. https://doi. Benjamin, D. J., Heffetz, O., Kimball,
Balvanera, P., Jacobs, S., Nagendra, H., org/10.1007/1-4020-5405-X_14 M. S., & Szembrot, N. (2014). Beyond
O’Farrell, P., Bridgewater, P., Crouzat, E., Happiness and Satisfaction: Toward Well-
Dendoncker, N., Goodwin, S., Gustafsson, Bateman, I., Carson, R., Day, B., Being Indices Based on Stated Preference.
K. M., Kadykalo, A. N., Krug, C. B., Matuk, Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones- American Economic Review, 104(9),
F. A., Pandit, R., Sala, J. E., Schröter, M., Lee, M., & Loomes, G. (Eds.). (2002). 2698-2735. https://doi.org/10.1257/
& Washbourne, C.-L. (2020). The science- Economic valuation with stated preference aer.104.9.2698
policy interface on ecosystems and people: techniques: A manual. Edward Elgar.
Challenges and opportunities. Ecosystems Bennett, J., & Blamey, R. (Eds.). (2001). The
and People, 16(1), 345-353. https://doi.org/ Bateman, I. J., Harwood, A. R., Mace, G. choice modelling approach to environmental
10.1080/26395916.2020.1819426 M., Watson, R. T., Abson, D. J., Andrews, valuation. Edward Elgar.
B., Binner, A., Crowe, A., Day, B. H.,
Banzhaf, H. S., & Boyd, J. (2012). The Dugdale, S., Fezzi, C., Foden, J., Hadley, D., Berbés-Blázquez, M. (2012). A Participatory
Architecture and Measurement of an Haines-Young, R., Hulme, M., Kontoleon, Assessment of Ecosystem Services and
Ecosystem Services Index. Sustainability, A., Lovett, A. A., Munday, P., Pascual, U., … Human Wellbeing in Rural Costa Rica Using
4(4), 430-461. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Termansen, M. (2013). Bringing Ecosystem Photo-Voice. Environmental Management,
su4040430 Services into Economic Decision-Making: 49(4), 862-875. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Land Use in the United Kingdom. Science, s00267-012-9822-9
Barbier, E. B. (2016). The protective service 341(6141), 45-50. https://doi.org/10.1126/
of mangrove ecosystems: A review of science.1234379 Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking Community-
valuation methods. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Based Conservation. Conservation Biology,
109(2), 676-681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Bateman, I. J., Mace, G. M., Fezzi, 18(3), 621-630. https://doi.org/10.1111/
marpolbul.2016.01.033 C., Atkinson, G., & Turner, K. (2011). j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x
Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service
Assessments. Environmental and Resource Berkes, F. (2008). Sacred ecology (2nd ed).
Routledge.
225
Berlin, B. (2014). Ethnobiological Distributional Impacts in Benefit–Cost Bresnihan, P. (2017). Valuing Nature–
Classification: Principles of Categorization Analysis. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Perspectives and Issues. NESC Research
of Plants and Animals in Traditional 11(3), 457-478. https://doi.org/10.1017/ Series, 11, 60.
Societies. In Ethnobiological Classification. bca.2020.18
Princeton University Press. https://doi. Breustedt, G., Schulz, N., & Latacz-
org/10.1515/9781400862597 Bockstael, N. E., Freeman, A. M., Kopp, Lohmann, U. (2013). Factors affecting
R. J., Portney, P. R., & Smith, V. K. (2000). Participation and Compensation
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E., Raven, P. On Measuring Economic Values for Nature. Requirements in Agri-Environmental
H., & Hammel, E. A. (1974). Principles Environmental Science & Technology, Schemes: Insights from a Discrete Choice
of Tzeltal Plant Classification: An 34(8), 1384-1389. https://doi.org/10.1021/ Experiment. German Journal of Agricultural
Introduction to the Botanical Ethnography es990673l Economics, 62, 244-258.
of a Mayan-Speaking, People of
Highland, Chiapas. (1st edition). Elsevier Boeraeve, F., Dufrene, M., De Vreese, R., Brook, R. K., & McLachlan, S. M. (2008).
Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013 Jacobs, S., Pipart, N., Turkelboom, F., Trends and prospects for local knowledge
-0-07678-5 Verheyden, W., & Dendoncker, N. (2018). in ecological and conservation research and
Participatory identification and selection monitoring. Biodiversity and Conservation,
Bernues, A., Rodriguez-Ortega, T., of ecosystem services: Building on field 17(14), 3501-3512. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Ripoll-Bosch, R., & Alfnes, F. (2014). experiences. Ecology and Society, 23(2), s10531-008-9445-x
Socio-Cultural and Economic Valuation art27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10087-
of Ecosystem Services Provided by 230227 Brouwer, R., Barton, D., & Oosterhuis, F.
Mediterranean Mountain Agroecosystems. (2007). Economic methods, models and
Plos One, 9(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/ Borrows, J. (2016). Freedom and instruments for the Water Framework
journal.pone.0102479 Indigenous Constitutionalism. University of Directive. In Integrated Assessment for
Toronto Press. https://utorontopress.com/ Water Framework Directive Implementation:
Bieling, C. (2014). Cultural ecosystem 9781442630956/freedom-and-indigenous Data, Economic and Human Dimension.
services as revealed through short -constitutionalism/ International Water Association (IWA).
stories from residents of the Swabian
Alb (Germany). Ecosystem Services, Botelho, A., Ferreira, P., Lima, F., Pinto, L. Brouwer, R., & Navrud, S. (2015). The Use
8, 207-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. M. C., & Sousa, S. (2017). Assessment of and Development of Benefit Transfer in
ecoser.2014.04.002 the environmental impacts associated with Europe. In R. J. Johnston, J. Rolfe, R. S.
hydropower. Renewable and Sustainable Rosenberger, & R. Brouwer (Eds.), Benefit
Bishop, R. C., & Boyle, K. J. (2017). Energy Reviews, 70, 896-904. https://doi. Transfer of Environmental and Resource
Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.271 Values (Vol. 14, pp. 71-83). Springer
Valuation. In P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle, & T. Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
C. Brown (Eds.), A Primer on Nonmarket Bouma, J. A., & van Beukering, P. J. H. 94-017-9930-0_4
Valuation (pp. 463-497). Springer (2015). Ecosystem services: From concept
Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- to practice. In J. A. Bouma & P. J. H. van Brown, G., & Fagerholm, N. (2015).
94-007-7104-8_12 Beukering (Eds.), Ecosystem Services: From Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of
Concept to Practice (pp. 3-22). Cambridge ecosystem services: A review and
Bishop, R. C., Boyle, K. J., Carson, R. T., University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ evaluation. Ecosystem Services, 13,
Chapman, D., Hanemann, W. M., Kanninen, CBO9781107477612.002 119-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
B., Kopp, R. J., Krosnick, J. A., List, J., ecoser.2014.10.007
Meade, N., Paterson, R., Presser, S., Boyce, P., Bhattacharyya, J., & Linklater,
Smith, V. K., Tourangeau, R., Welsh, M., W. (2021). The need for formal reflexivity in Brown, G., & Kyttä, M. (2018). Key
Wooldridge, J. M., DeBell, M., Donovan, conservation science. Conservation Biology, issues and priorities in participatory
C., Konopka, M., & Scherer, N. (2017). cobi.13840. https://doi.org/10.1111/ mapping: Toward integration or increased
Putting a value on injuries to natural assets: cobi.13840 specialization? Applied Geography,
The BP oil spill. Science, 356(6335), 253- 95, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
254. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. Boyd, J., Ringold, P., Krupnick, A., apgeog.2018.04.002
aam8124 Johnston, R. J., Weber, M. A., Hall, K. M.,
Johnson, R., Weber, M. A., & Hall, K. M. Brown, G., & Raymond, C. M. (2014).
Blamey, R. K., Bennett, J. W., & Morrison, (2016). Ecosystem services indicators: Methods for identifying land use conflict
M. D. (1999). Yea-Saying in Contingent Improving the linkage between biophysical potential using participatory mapping.
Valuation Surveys. Land Economics, 75(1), and economic analyses. International Landscape and Urban Planning, 122,
126. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146997 Review of Environmental and Resource 196-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Economics, 8(3-4), 359-443. https://doi. landurbplan.2013.11.007
Blamey, R. K., Common, M. S., & Quiggin, org/10.1561/101.00000073
J. C. (1995). Respondents to Contingent Brown, T. C., Peterson, G. L., & Tonn, B.
Valuation Surveys: Consumers or Boyle, K. J., Kuminoff, N. V., Parmeter, E. (1995). The Values Jury to Aid Natural
Citizens? Australian Journal of Agricultural C. F., & Pope, J. C. (2010). The Benefit- Resource Decisions. Land Economics, 71(2),
Economics, 39(3), 263-288. https://doi. Transfer Challenges. Annual Review 250. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146505
org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.1995.tb00554.x of Resource Economics, 2(1), 161-
182. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. Browne, M., Fraser, G., & Snowball, J.
Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., resource.012809.103933 (2018). Economic evaluation of wetland
Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (2020). restoration: A systematic review of the
Efficiency without Apology: Consideration literature. Restoration Ecology, 26(6), 1120-
of the Marginal Excess Tax Burden and 1126. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12889
226
Brummans, B., Putnam, L., Hanke, 70(8), 1529-1535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Nonmarket Valuation (Vol. 3). Springer
R., Lewicki, R., & Wiethoff, C. (2008). ecolecon.2011.03.015 Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
Making Sense of Intractable Multiparty 94-007-0826-6
Conflict: A Study of Framing in Four Carnoye, L., & Lopes, R. (2015).
Environmental Disputes. Communication Participatory Environmental Valuation: A Chan, K. M. A., Anderson, E., Chapman,
Monographs, 75, 25-51. https://doi. Comparative Analysis of Four Case Studies. M., Jespersen, K., & Olmsted, P. (2017).
org/10.1080/03637750801952735 Sustainability, 7(8), 9823-9845. https://doi. Payments for Ecosystem Services: Rife With
org/10.3390/su7089823 Problems and Potential—For Transformation
Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, Towards Sustainability. Ecological
C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing Carothers, C., Brown, C., Moerlein, K., Economics, 140, 110-122. https://doi.
Public Participation Processes. Public López, J., Andersen, D., & Retherford, org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.029
Administration Review, 73(1), 23-34. https:// B. (2014). Measuring perceptions of
doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02678.x climate change in Northern Alaska: Pairing Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2020). The
Ethnography with cultural consensus maturation of ecosystem services: Social
Burkhard, B., & Maes, J. (2017). Mapping analysis. Ecology and Society, 19, and policy research expands, but whither
Ecosystem Services. Pensoft. 27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06913- biophysically informed valuation? People
190427 and Nature, 2(4), 1021-1060. https://doi.
Busch, M., La Notte, A., Laporte, V., & org/10.1002/pan3.10137
Erhard, M. (2012). Potentials of quantitative Carson, R. T. (2012). Contingent Valuation:
and qualitative approaches to assessing A Practical Alternative when Prices Chang, J. B., & Lusk, J. L. (2009).
ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, Aren’t Available. Journal of Economic Fairness and food choice. Food Policy,
21, 89-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Perspectives, 26(4), 27-42. https://doi. 34(6), 483-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2011.11.010 org/10.1257/jep.26.4.27 foodpol.2009.08.002
Callicott, J. B., & Mumford, K. (1998). Carson, R. T. (2018). The Stated Preference Cheng, X., Van Damme, S., Li, L., &
Ecological Sustainability as a Conservation Approach to Environmental Valuation, Uyttenhove, P. (2019). Evaluation of cultural
Concept. In J. Lemons, L. Westra, & R. Volumes I, II and III. Routledge. https://doi. ecosystem services: A review of methods.
Goodland (Eds.), Ecological Sustainability org/10.4324/9781315236940 Ecosystem Services, 37, 100925. https://
and Integrity: Concepts and Approaches (Vol. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100925
13, pp. 31-45). Springer Netherlands. https:// Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., & Meade, N. F.
doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1337-5_3 (2001). Contingent Valuation: Controversies Chennels, R., & Schroeder, D. (2017). The
and Evidence. Environmental and Resource San Code of Research Ethics. Its Origins
Cameron, T. A. (1992). Combining Economics, 19(2), 173-210. https://doi. and History. TRUST Project.
Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data org/10.1023/A:1011128332243
for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods. Chilisa, B. (2017). Decolonising
Land Economics, 68(3), 302. https://doi. Carson, R. T., & Groves, T. (2007). Incentive transdisciplinary research approaches:
org/10.2307/3146378 and informational properties of preference An African perspective for enhancing
questions. Environmental and Resource knowledge integration in sustainability science.
Cappelen, A. W., Hole, A. D., Sørensen, E. Economics, 37(1), 181-210. https://doi. Sustainability Science, 12(5), 813-827. https://
Ø., & Tungodden, B. (2007). The Pluralism org/10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5 doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0461-1
of Fairness Ideals: An Experimental
Approach. The American Economic Review, Carter, L. (2004). Thinking differently about Chilisa, B. (2020). Indigenous research
97(3), 10. cultural diversity: Using postcolonial theory methodologies (Second edition). SAGE.
to (re)read science education. Science
Cariño, J. (2008). Introduction. In M. Education, 88(6), 819-836. https://doi. Chilvers, J., & Kearnes, M. (Eds.).
Stankovitch (Ed.), Indicators relevant for org/10.1002/sce.20000 (2016). Remaking participation: Science,
indigenous peoples: A resource book. environment and emergent publics.
Tebtebba Foundation. Casimirri, G. (2003). Problems with Routledge Taylor and Francis.
integrating traditional ecological knowledge
Cariño, J., & Colchester, M. (2010). From into contemporary resource management. Christie, M. (2007). An Examination of the
Dams to Development Justice: Progress Submitted to the XII World Forestry Disparity Between Hypothetical and Actual
with «Free, Prior and Informed Consent» Congress, Québec, Canada. https://www. Willingness to Pay Using the Contingent
Since the World Commission on Dams. fao.org/3/xii/0887-a3.htm Valuation Method: The Case of Red Kite
3(2), 15. Conservation in the United Kingdom.
Chambers, R. (1994). The origins and Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/
Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., Krupnick, A., practice of participatory rural appraisal. Revue Canadienne d’agroeconomie, 55(2),
Lampi, E., Löfgren, Å., Qin, P., & Sterner, World Development, 22(7), 953-969. https:// 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
T. (2013). A fair share: Burden-sharing doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(94)90141-4 7976.2007.00085.x
preferences in the United States and
China. Resource and Energy Economics, Chambers, R. (2009). So that the poor Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde,
35(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. count more: Using participatory methods for T., & Kenter, J. O. (2012). An evaluation of
reseneeco.2012.11.001 impact evaluation. Journal of Development monetary and non-monetary techniques for
Effectiveness, 1(3), 243-246. https://doi. assessing the importance of biodiversity and
Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., Lampi, E., Löfgren, org/10.1080/19439340903137199 ecosystem services to people in countries
Å., & Sterner, T. (2011). Is fairness blind?— with developing economies. Ecological
The effect of framing on preferences for Champ, P. A., Boyle, K. J., & Brown, Economics, 83, 67-78. https://doi.
effort-sharing rules. Ecological Economics, T. C. (Eds.). (2003). A Primer on org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012
227
Clabaugh, G., & Ward, M. M. (2008). Cost- process over the French Alps. Ecology Environmental Practice, 5. https://doi.
of-Illness Studies in the United States: A and Society, 21(2), art32. https://doi. org/10.1017/S1466046603035580
Systematic Review of Methodologies Used org/10.5751/ES-08494-210232
for Direct Cost. Value in Health, 11(1), Davis, R. K. (1963). The value of outdoor
13-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524- Cuppen, E. (2012). A quasi-experimental recreation: An economic study of the Maine
4733.2007.00210.x evaluation of learning in a stakeholder woods. Harvard University.
dialogue on bio-energy. Research Policy,
Clark, W. C., & Harley, A. G. (2020). 41(3), 624-637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Davis, S. H. (1993). The World Bank and
Sustainability Science: Toward respol.2011.12.006 Indigenous Peoples. Panel Discussion on
a Synthesis. Annual Review of Indigenous People and Ethnic Minorities at
Environment and Resources, 45(1), 331- Cuppen, E. (2018). The value of social the Denver Initiative Conference on Human
386. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- conflicts. Critiquing invited participation Rights. University of Denver Law School,
environ-012420-043621 in energy projects. Energy Research & Denver Colorado.
Social Science, 38, 28-32. https://doi.
Clawson, M. (1959). Methods of measuring org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.01.016 Dawson, N., & Martin, A. (2015). Assessing
the demand for and value of outdoor the contribution of ecosystem services to
recreation. http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/ Custódio, M., Villasante, S., Calado, R., & human wellbeing: A disaggregated study in
search.do?recordID=US201300627464 Lillebø, A. I. (2020). Valuation of Ecosystem western Rwanda. Ecological Economics,
Services to promote sustainable aquaculture 117, 62-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
Conklin, H. C. (1957). Hanunóo agriculture: practices. Reviews in Aquaculture, ECOLECON.2015.06.018
A report on an integral system of shifting 12(1), 392-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cultivation in the Philippines (Fac-sim. raq.12324 de Araujo Barbosa, C. C., Atkinson, P. M.,
ed). FAO. & Dearing, J. A. (2015). Remote sensing of
Czajkowski, M., Giergiczny, M., Kronenberg, ecosystem services: A systematic review.
Cooper, D. J., & Kagel, J. H. (2016). 4. J., & Englin, J. (2019). The Individual Ecological Indicators, 52, 430-443. https://
Other-Regarding Preferences A Selective Travel Cost Method with Consumer- doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.01.007
Survey of Experimental Results. In J. H. Specific Values of Travel Time Savings.
Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The Handbook Environmental and Resource Economics, De Boer, W. F., & Baquete, D. S. (1998).
of Experimental Economics, Volume Two. 74(3), 961-984. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Natural resource use, crop damage
Princeton University Press. https://doi. s10640-019-00355-6 and attitudes of rural people in the
org/10.1515/9781400883172-005 vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve,
Czajkowski, M., Hanley, N., & Nyborg, K. Mozambique. Environmental Conservation,
Corntassel, J. (2003). Who is indigenous? (2017). Social Norms, Morals and Self- 25(3), 208-218. https://doi.org/10.1017/
‘Peoplehood’ and ethnonationalist interest as Determinants of Pro-environment S0376892998000265
approaches to rearticulating indigenous Behaviours: The Case of Household
identity. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 9(1), Recycling. Environmental and Resource de Groot, R., Brander, L., & Solomonides,
75-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537110 Economics, 66(4), 647-670. https://doi. S. (2020). Update of global ecosystem
412331301365 org/10.1007/s10640-015-9964-3 service valuation data (FSD report No 2020-
06; p. 58).
Costanza, R. (1999). The ecological, Czembrowski, P., Kronenberg, J., &
economic, and social importance of the Czepkiewicz, M. (2016). Integrating non- de Groot, R., Moolenaar, S., de Vente, J.,
oceans. Ecological Economics, 31(2), 199- monetary and monetary valuation methods De Leijster, V., Ramos, M. E., Robles, A.
213. https://www.nature.com/articles/ – SoftGIS and hedonic pricing. Ecological B., Schoonhoven, Y., & Verweij, P. (2022).
387253a0 Economics, 130, 166-175. https://doi. Framework for integrated Ecosystem
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.07.004 Services assessment of the costs
Costanza, R., Arge, R., Groot, R. D., Farber, and benefits of large scale landscape
S., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., Daily, G. C. (1997). Nature’s services. restoration illustrated with a case study in
& Neill, R. V. O. (1997). The Value of the Societal dependence on natural ecosystems Mediterranean Spain. Ecosystem Services,
World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural (Vol. 19971). Island Press, Washington, DC. 53, 101383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Capital. Nature, 387(May), 253-260. http:// ecoser.2021.101383
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.07.1349 Dasgupta, P. (2009). The Welfare Economic
Theory of Green National Accounts. de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans,
Crossman, N. D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., Environmental and Resource Economics, R. M. J. (2002). A typology for the
Willemen, L., Petz, K., Palomo, I., Drakou, 42(1), 3-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/ classification, description and valuation
E. G., Martín-Lopez, B., McPhearson, s10640-008-9223-y of ecosystem functions, goods and
T., Boyanova, K., Alkemade, R., Egoh, services. Ecological Economics, 41(3),
B., Dunbar, M. B., & Maes, J. (2013). Dasgupta, P. (2021). The Economics of 393-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-
A blueprint for mapping and modelling Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. HM 8009(02)00089-7
ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, Treasury. https://assets.publishing.service.
4, 4-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ del Río-Mena, T., Willemen, L., Tesfamariam,
ecoser.2013.02.001 uploads/attachment_data/file/962785/The_ G. T., Beukes, O., & Nelson, A. (2020).
Economics_of_Biodiversity_The_Dasgupta_ Remote sensing for mapping ecosystem
Crouzat, E., Martín-López, B., Turkelboom, Review_Full_Report.pdf services to support evaluation of
F., & Lavorel, S. (2016). Disentangling ecological restoration interventions in an
trade-offs and synergies around ecosystem Davis, C., & Lewicki, R. (2003). arid landscape. Ecological Indicators,
services with the influence network Environmental Conflict Resolution: Framing 113, 106182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
framework: Illustration from a consultative and Intractability—An Introduction. ecolind.2020.106182
228
Dendoncker, N., Turkelboom, F., Boeraeve, P. W., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., van der Drupp, M. A., Freeman, M. C., Groom, B., &
F., Boerema, A., Broekx, S., Fontaine, Plaat, F., Schröter, M., Lavorel, S., … Nesje, F. (2018). Discounting Disentangled.
C., Demeyer, R., De Vreese, R., Devillet, Shirayama, Y. (2018). Assessing nature’s American Economic Journal: Economic
G., Keune, H., Janssens, L., Liekens, contributions to people. Science (New York, Policy, 10(4), 109-134. https://doi.
I., Lord-Tarte, E., Popa, F., Simoens, I., N.Y.), 359(6373), 270-272. https://doi. org/10.1257/pol.20160240
Smeets, N., Ulenaers, P., Van Herzele, org/10.1126/science.aap8826
A., Van Tichelen, K., & Jacobs, S. (2018). Drupp, M. A., & Hänsel, M. C. (2020). Relative
Integrating Ecosystem Services values for Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Prices and Climate Policy: How the Scarcity
sustainability? Evidence from the Belgium Subjective well-being: The science of of Non-Market Goods Drives Policy Evaluation
Ecosystem Services community of practice. happiness and life satisfaction. In Handbook (SSRN Scholarly Paper N.o 3529008). Social
Ecosystem Services, 31, 68-76. https://doi. of positive psychology (pp. 63-73). Science Research Network. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.006 org/10.2139/ssrn.3529008
Dietz, S., & Asheim, G. B. (2012). Climate
Dessart, F. J., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., & van policy under sustainable discounted Dubois, S., & Fraser, D. (2013). Rating harms
Bavel, R. (2019). Behavioural factors utilitarianism. Journal of Environmental to wildlife: A survey showing convergence
affecting the adoption of sustainable Economics and Management, 63(3), between conservation and animal welfare
farming practices: A policy-oriented review. 321-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. views. Animal Welfare, 22(1), 49-55. https://
European Review of Agricultural Economics, jeem.2012.01.003 doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.1.049
46(3), 417-471. https://doi.org/10.1093/
erae/jbz019 Dietz, S., & Atkinson, G. (2021). The Equity- Dupont, D. P., & Renzetti, S. (2008). Good
Efficiency Trade-off in Environmental Policy: to the Last Drop? An Assessment of
Dewulf, A., Craps, M., & Dercon, G. (2004). Evidence from Stated Preferences. Land Canadian Water Value Estimates. Canadian
How Issues Get Framed and Reframed Economics, 22. Water Resources Journal, 33(4), 369-
When Different Communities Meet: A 380. https://doi.org/10.4296/cwrj3304369
Multi-Level Analysis of a Collaborative Soil Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Dan, A. (2009).
Conservation Initiative in the Ecuadorian How Deliberation Affects Stated Durie, M. (2001a). Mauri Ora: The Dynamics
Andes. Journal of Community & Applied Willingness to Pay for Mitigation of Carbon of Maori Health. Oxford University Press.
Social Psychology, 14, 177-192. https://doi. Dioxide Emissions: An Experiment. Land
org/10.1002/casp.772 Economics, 85(2), 329-347. https://doi. Edwards, D., Jay, M., Jensen, F. S., Lucas,
org/10.3368/le.85.2.329 B., Marzano, M., Montagné, C., Peace, A.,
Dewulf, A., Termeer, C. J. a. M., & Vink, & Weiss, G. (2012). Public preferences for
M. J. (2010). «Climategate»: Conflicting Dixon, J. (2012). Enhanced Cost Benefit structural attributes of forests: Towards a
frames, patterns and policy implications of Analysis of IDB Waste Water Treatment pan-European perspective. Forest Policy
a controversy. https://research.wur.nl/en/ Projects with Special Consideration and Economics, 19, 12-19. https://doi.
publications/climategate-conflicting-frames- to Environmental Impacts: Lessons org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.07.006
patterns-and-policy-implications-o Learned from a Review of Four Projects.
Undefined. https://www.semanticscholar. Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (1981).
Diamond, P. A., & Hausman, J. A. (1994). org/paper/Enhanced-Cost-Benefit-Analysis- Extinction: The Causes and Consequences
Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number of-IDB-Waste-Water-a-Dixon/01d46cf64030 of the Disappearance of Species.
Better than No Number? Journal of b45623c2de72a09626dc89981810 Gollancz. https://books.google.com.mx/
Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 45-64. https:// books?id=KUwzHAAACAAJ
doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.4.45 Dreber, A., Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M.,
& Rand, D. G. (2013). Do people care about Elias, M., Jalonen, R., Fernandez, M., &
Díaz, M., Concepción, E. D., Oviedo, J. social context? Framing effects in dictator Grosse, A. (2017). Gender-responsive
L., Caparrós, A., Farizo, B. Á., & Campos, games. Experimental Economics, 16(3), participatory research for social learning and
P. (2020). A comprehensive index for 349-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683- sustainable forest management. Forests,
threatened biodiversity valuation. Ecological 012-9341-9 Trees and Livelihoods, 26(1), 1-12. https://
Indicators, 108, 105696. https://doi. doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2016.1247753
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105696 Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and reliability
in social science research. Education Ellen, R. (1993). The Cultural Relations of
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, Research and Perspectives, 38(1), 105. Classification: An Analysis of Nuaulu Animal
C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, Categories from Central Seram. Cambridge
A., Adhikari, J. R., Arico, S., Báldi, A., Droste, N., D’Amato, D., & Goddard, J. J. University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
Bartuska, A., Baste, I. A., Bilgin, A., (2018). Where communities intermingle, CBO9780511470530
Brondizio, E., Chan, K. M. A., Figueroa, V. diversity grows—The evolution of topics
E., Duraiappah, A., Fischer, M., Hill, R., … in ecosystem service research. Plos One, Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and
Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES Conceptual 13(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. explicit knowledge of a second language:
Framework—Connecting nature and pone.0204749 A Psychometric Study. Studies in Second
people. Current Opinion in Environmental Language Acquisition, 27(02). https://doi.
Sustainability, 14, 1-16. https://doi. Drupp, M. A. (2018). Limits to Substitution org/10.1017/S0272263105050096
org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 Between Ecosystem Services and
Manufactured Goods and Implications Emery, S. B., Perks, M. T., & Bracken, L.
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., for Social Discounting. Environmental J. (2013). Negotiating river restoration:
Martín-López, B., Watson, R. T., Molnár, and Resource Economics, 69(1), 135- The role of divergent reframing in
Z., Hill, R., Chan, K. M. A., Baste, I. A., 158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016- environmental decision-making. Geoforum,
Brauman, K. A., Polasky, S., Church, A., 0068-5 47, 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Lonsdale, M., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, geoforum.2013.01.008
229
Emmerling, J., Groom, B., & Wettingfeld, T. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. and deliberative techniques to support the
(2017). Discounting and the representative (2008). Oil Spill Facts. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill monetary and non- monetary valuation of
median agent. Economics Letters, Trustee Council. https://evostc.state.ak.us/ ecosystem services: An introductory guide
161, 78-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. oil-spill-facts/ (p. 71). Department for Environment Food
econlet.2017.09.031 and Rural Affairs. Project Code: NR0124.
Fagerholm, N., Raymond, C. M., Olafsson,
Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). A. S., Brown, G., Rinne, T., Hasanzadeh, Fleurbaey, M., & Abi-Rafeh, R. (2016). The
Designing payments for environmental K., Broberg, A., & Kyttä, M. (2021). A Use of Distributional Weights in Benefit–Cost
services in theory and practice: An overview methodological framework for analysis of Analysis: Insights from Welfare Economics.
of the issues. Ecological Economics, participatory mapping data in research, Review of Environmental Economics
65(4), 663-674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. planning, and management. International and Policy, 10(2), 286-307. https://doi.
ecolecon.2008.03.011 Journal of Geographical Information org/10.1093/reep/rew003
Science, 35(9), 1848-1875. https://doi.org/
Epstein, D., & Leshed, G. (2016). The 10.1080/13658816.2020.1869747 Flynn, M., Ford, J. D., Pearce, T., &
Magic Sauce: Practices of Facilitation Harper, S. L. (2018). Participatory scenario
in Online Policy Deliberation. Journal of Farber, S., Costanza, R., Childers, D. planning and climate change impacts,
Deliberative Democracy, 12(1), 4. https:// L., Erickson, J., Gross, K., Grove, M., adaptation and vulnerability research in the
doi.org/10.16997/jdd.244 Hopkinson, C. S., Kahn, J., Pincetl, S., Arctic. Environmental Science & Policy,
Troy, A., Warren, P., & Wilson, M. (2006). 79, 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Eshet, T., Ayalon, O., & Shechter, M. (2005). Linking Ecology and Economics for envsci.2017.10.012
A critical review of economic valuation Ecosystem Management. BioScience,
studies of externalities from incineration 56(2), 121. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006- Fontaine, C. M., Dendoncker, N., De Vreese,
and landfilling. Waste Management & 3568(2006)056[0121:LEAEFE]2.0.CO;2 R., Jacquemin, I., Marek, A., Van Herzele,
Research, 23(6), 487-504. https://doi. A., Devillet, G., Mortelmans, D., & François,
org/10.1177/0734242X05060966 Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory L. (2014). Towards participatory integrated
of fairness, competition and cooperation. valuation and modelling of ecosystem
Estrada, V. M. J. (2005). The Tree of services under land-use change. Journal of
Life as a Research Methodology. The Feldman, D. (1987). Ethical Analysis Land Use Science, 9(3), 278-303. https://
Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, in public policymaking. Policy Studies doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2013.786150
34, 44-52. https://doi.org/10.1017/ Journal, 15(3), 441-460. https://doi.
S1326011100003951 org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1987.tb00723.x Ford, R. I. (Ed.). (1994). The Nature and
Status of Ethnobotany, 2nd ed. University of
European Commission. (2021). Felt, U., Igelsböck, J., Schikowitz, A., Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/
Sustainable finance package [Text]. & Völker, T. (2016). Transdisciplinary mpub.11396367
European Commission – European Sustainability Research in Practice:
Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/ Between Imaginaries of Collective Forest Peoples Programme. (2020). Local
publications/210421-sustainable-finance- Experimentation and Entrenched Academic Biodiversity Outlooks 2: The contributions of
communication_en Value Orders. Science, Technology, & indigenous peoples and local communities
Human Values, 41(4), 732-761. https://doi. to the implementation of the Strategic Plan
European Commission Directorate. org/10.1177/0162243915626989 for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and to renewing
(2005). ExternE: Externalities of energy; nature and cultures. Forest Peoples
methodology 2005 update (P. Bickel Ferng, J.-J. (2007). Biophysical Programme. https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo5/
& R. Friedrich, Eds.). Office for Official assessments in evaluating industrial publication/lbo-2-summary-en.pdf
Publications of the European Communities. development: An experience from Taiwan
freshwater aquaculture. Ecological Forsberg, E.-M., Shelley-Egan, C.,
Evans, D. M. (2018). Rethinking material Economics, 63(2-3), 427-434. https://doi. Thorstensen, E., Landeweerd, L., &
cultures of sustainability: Commodity org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.11.009 Hofmann, B. (2017). Evaluating Ethical
consumption, cultural biographies and Frameworks for the Assessment of Human
following the thing. Transactions of the Ferrini, S., Fezzi, C., Day, B. H., & Bateman, Cognitive Enhancement Applications.
Institute of British Geographers, 43(1), 110- I. J. (2008). Valuing spatially dispersed Springer International Publishing. https://
121. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12206 environmental goods: A joint revealed and doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53823-5
stated preference model to consistently
Everard, M., Jones, L., & Watts, B. (2010). separate use and non- use values. CSERGE Forsyth, T., & Sikor, T. (2013). Forests,
Have we neglected the societal importance Working Paper, University of East Anglia, development and the globalisation of justice:
of sand dunes? An ecosystem services 08(03), 26. Forests, development and the globalisation
perspective. Aquatic Conservation: Marine of justice. The Geographical Journal,
and Freshwater Ecosystems, 20(4), 476- Filyushkina, A., Strange, N., Löf, M., Ezebilo, 179(2), 114-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/
487. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.1114 E. E., & Boman, M. (2016). Non-market geoj.12006
forest ecosystem services and decision
Everard, M., & McInnes, R. (2013). support in Nordic countries. Scandinavian Frake, C. O. (1962). Cultural Ecology and
Systemic solutions for multi-benefit Journal of Forest Research, 31(1), 99- Ethnography. American Anthropologist,
water and environmental management. 110. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.20 64(1), 53-59. https://doi.org/10.1525/
Science of The Total Environment, 461- 15.1079643 aa.1962.64.1.02a00060
462, 170-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2013.05.010 Fish, R., Winter, M., Russel, D., Burgess, Franklin, C. S., Cody, P. A., & Ballan, M.
J., Chilvers, J., Footitt, A., Turner, K., & (2010). Chapter 19 | Reliability and Validity
Haines-young, R. (2011). Participatory in Qualitative Research. In B. A. Thyer (Ed.),
230
The handbook of social work research Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, Economics, 49(2), 263-304. https://doi.
methods (2nd ed). SAGE. B., Barton, D., Braat, L., Saarikoski, H., org/10.1007/s10640-010-9433-y
Kelemen, M., García-Llorente, E., van den
Freeman III, A. M., Herriges, J. A., & Bergh, J., Arias, P., Berry, P. L., Potschin, Guerry, A. D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J.,
Kling, C. L. (2014). The measurement of M., Keene, H., Dunford, R., Schröter- Chaplin-Kramer, R., Daily, G. C., Griffin,
environmental and resource values: Theory Schlaack, C., & Harrison, P. (2014). State- R., Ruckelshaus, M., Bateman, I. J.,
and methods (Third edition). RFF Press. of-the-art report on integrated valuation of Duraiappah, A., Elmqvist, T., Feldman,
ecosystem services. Deliverable European M. W., Folke, C., Hoekstra, J., Kareiva,
Garmendia, E., & Gamboa, G. (2012). Commission FP7 (Deliverable D.4.1 / WP4; P. M., Keeler, B. L., Li, S., McKenzie, E.,
Weighting social preferences in participatory p. 33). http://www.openness-project. Ouyang, Z., Reyers, B., … Vira, B. (2015).
multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on eu/sites/default/files/Deliverable%20 Natural capital and ecosystem services
sustainable natural resource management. 4%201_Integrated-Valuation-Of-Ecosystem- informing decisions: From promise to
Ecological Economics, 84, 110-120. https:// Services.pdf practice. Proceedings of the National
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.09.004 Academy of Sciences of the United States
Goodenough, W. H. (1957). Oceania and of America, 112(24), 7348-7355. https://doi.
Garmendia, E., & Pascual, U. (2013). the problem of controls in the study of org/10.1073/pnas.1503751112
Chapter 8. A justice critique of cultural and human evolution. The Journal of
environmental valuation for ecosystem the Polynesian Society, 66(2), 146-155. Haab, T. C., Interis, M. G., Petrolia, D. R., &
governance. In T. Sikor (Ed.), The Justices Whitehead, J. C. (2013). From Hopeless to
and Injustices of Ecosystem Services (0 Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology Curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s “Dubious
ed., pp. 175-200). Routledge. https://doi. of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types to Hopeless” Critique of Contingent
org/10.4324/9780203395288-25 and associated methodologies. Health Valuation. Applied Economic Perspectives
Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), and Policy, 35(4), 593-612. https://doi.
Gaudry, A. J. P. (2011). Insurgent Research. 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471- org/10.1093/aepp/ppt029
Wicazo Sa Review, 26(1), 113-136. https:// 1842.2009.00848.x
doi.org/10.1353/wic.2011.0006 Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E.,
Gray, B. (2003). Framing of Environmental Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J.,
Global Water Partnership. (2000). Integrated Disputes. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Gomez-Baggethun, E., Gren, Å., Hamstead,
water resources management. Global Elliot (Eds.), Making sense of intractable Z., Hansen, R., Kabisch, N., Kremer, P.,
water partnership. environmental conflicts: Concepts and Langemeyer, J., Rall, E. L., McPhearson,
cases (pp. 11-34). T., Pauleit, S., Qureshi, S., Schwarz,
Gobster, P. H. (1994). The aesthetic N., Voigt, A., … Elmqvist, T. (2014). A
experience of sustainable forest Grêt-Regamey, A., Walz, A., & Bebi, Quantitative Review of Urban Ecosystem
ecosystems. General Technical Report RM P. (2008). Valuing Ecosystem Services Service Assessments: Concepts, Models,
(USA). https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/ for Sustainable Landscape Planning in and Implementation. AMBIO, 43(4), 413-
search.do?recordID=US9600369 Alpine Regions. Mountain Research and 433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-
Development, 28(2), 156-165. https://doi. 0504-0
Gobster, P. H. (1999). An Ecological org/10.1659/mrd.0951
Aesthetic for Forest Landscape Haase, D., Schwarz, N., Strohbach, M.,
Management. Landscape Journal, 18(1), Griffiths, C., Klemick, H., Massey, M., Kroll, F., & Seppelt, R. (2012). Synergies,
54-64. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.18.1.54 Moore, C., Newbold, S., Simpson, D., Trade-offs, and Losses of Ecosystem
Walsh, P., & Wheeler, W. (2012). U.S. Services in Urban Regions: An Integrated
Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, Environmental Protection Agency Valuation Multiscale Framework Applied to the
T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., of Surface Water Quality Improvements. Leipzig-Halle Region, Germany. Ecology
Pierrehumbert, R. T., Scarborough, P., Review of Environmental Economics and Society, 17(3), art22. https://doi.
Springmann, M., & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Meat and Policy, 6(1), 130-146. https://doi. org/10.5751/ES-04853-170322
consumption, health, and the environment. org/10.1093/reep/rer025
Science, 361(6399), eaam5324. https://doi. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and
org/10.1126/science.aam5324 Griffiths, C., & Wheeler, W. J. (2005). norms: Contributions to a discourse theory
Benefit-cost analysis of regulations affecting of law and democracy. MIT Press.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding surface water quality in the United States.
Reliability and Validity in Qualitative In R. Brouwer & D. W. Pearce (Eds.), Habermas, J. (1999). The Structural
Research. The Qualitative Report, Cost-benefit analysis and water resources transformation of the public sphere: An
8(4), 597-606. management. Edward Elgar. inquiry into a category of bourgeois society
(10. print). MIT Press.
Goldstein, J. H., Caldarone, G., Duarte, Groom, B., & Hepburn, C. (2017).
T. K., Ennaanay, D., Hannahs, N., Reflections—Looking Back at Social Häfner, K., Zasada, I., van Zanten, B. T.,
Mendoza, G., Polasky, S., Wolny, S., & Discounting Policy: The Influence of Papers, Ungaro, F., Koetse, M., & Piorr, A. (2018).
Daily, G. C. (2012). Integrating ecosystem- Presentations, Political Preconditions, and Assessing landscape preferences: A visual
service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Personalities. Review of Environmental choice experiment in the agricultural region
Proceedings of the National Academy of Economics and Policy, 11(2), 336- of Märkische Schweiz, Germany. Landscape
Sciences, 109(19), 7565-7570. https://doi. 356. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rex015 Research, 43(6), 846-861. https://doi.org/1
org/10.1073/pnas.1201040109 0.1080/01426397.2017.1386289
Gsottbauer, E., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M.
Gollier, C. (2013). Pricing the planet’s (2011). Environmental Policy Theory Given Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2010).
future: The economics of discounting in an Bounded Rationality and Other-regarding The links between biodiversity, ecosystem
uncertain world. Princeton University Press. Preferences. Environmental and Resource services and human well-being. In D. G.
231
Raffaelli & C. L. J. Frid (Eds.), Ecosystem Environmental and Resource Economics, M. (2017). Linking demand and supply
Ecology (pp. 110-139). Cambridge 11(3/4), 413-428. https://doi. factors in identifying cultural ecosystem
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ org/10.1023/A:1008287310583 services of urban green infrastructures: A
CBO9780511750458.007 review of European studies. Urban Forestry
Harberger, A. C. (1984). Basic Needs versus & Urban Greening, 21, 48-59. https://doi.
Hakkarainen, V., Anderson, C. B., Eriksson, Distributional Weights in Social Cost-Benefit org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.11.002
M., van Riper, C. J., Horcea-Milcu, A., & Analysis. Economic Development and
Raymond, C. M. (2020). Grounding IPBES Cultural Change, 32(3), 455-474. https:// Helferich, G. (2011). Humboldt’s cosmos:
experts’ views on the multiple values of doi.org/10.1086/451400 Alexander von Humboldt and the Latin
nature in epistemology, knowledge and American journey that changed the way we
collaborative science. Environmental Harmsworth, G., Young, R., Walker, D., see the world. Gotham Books.
Science & Policy, 105, 11-18. https://doi. Clapcott, J., & James, T. (2011). Linkages
org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.12.003 between cultural and scientific indicators Helm, D. (2015). Natural Capital: Valuing the
of river and stream health. New Zealand Planet. Yale University Press.
Hamel, P., & Bryant, B. P. (2017). Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research,
Uncertainty assessment in ecosystem 45(3), 423-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/002 Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T.,
services analyses: Seven challenges and 88330.2011.570767 & Bieling, C. (2013). An empirical review
practical responses. Ecosystem Services, of cultural ecosystem service indicators.
24, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Ecological Indicators, 29, 434-444. https://
ecoser.2016.12.008 Chapter 81 Experimental Evidence on doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013
the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in
Hamilton, K., & Clemens, M. (1999). Value Elicitation Methods. In Handbook of Herrera, G. E., Evans, K. S., & Lewis, L. Y.
Genuine Savings Rates in Developing Experimental Economics Results (Vol. 1, pp. (2017). Aligning Economic and Ecological
Countries. The World Bank Economic 752-767). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Priorities: Conflicts, Complementarities,
Review, 13(2), 333-356. S1574-0722(07)00081-9 and Regulatory Frictions. Agricultural and
Resource Economics Review, 46(2), 186-
Hamilton, K., & de Ruta, G. (2006). Harsanyi, J. C. (1987). Von Neumann- 205. https://doi.org/10.1017/age.2017.6
Measuring social welfare and sustainability. Morgenstern Utilities, Risk Taking, and
Statistical Journal of the United Nations Welfare. In G. R. Feiwel (Ed.), Arrow and the Hertwig, R., Wulff, D. U., & Mata,
ECE, 23, 12. Ascent of Modern Economic Theory (pp. R. (2019). Three gaps and what
545-558). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https:// they may mean for risk preference.
Hamilton, K., & Hartwick, J. M. (2005). doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07239-2_17 Philosophical Transactions B, 374,
Investing Exhaustible Resource Rents and 10. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0140
the Path of Consumption. The Canadian Hartwick, J. M. (1977). Intergenerational
Journal of Economics / Revue Canadienne Equity and the Investing of Rents from Hirons, M., Comberti, C., & Dunford,
d’Economique, 38(2), 615-621. Exhaustible Resources. The American R. (2016). Valuing Cultural Ecosystem
Economic Review, 67(5), 972-974. Services. Annual Review of Environment
Hamilton, K., & Hepburn, C. (Eds.). (2017). and Resources, 41(1), 545-
National wealth: What is missing, why it Hausman, J. (2012). Contingent Valuation: 574. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
matters (First edition). Oxford University Press. From Dubious to Hopeless. Journal environ-110615-085831
of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 43-
Hammer, M., Heiskanen, A.-S., Häggblom, 56. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.43 Hisschemöller, M. (2018). Participatory
M., Ilvessalo-Lax, H., Kvarnström, M., Methods for Identifying Stakeholder
Tunón, H., & Vihervaara, P. (2018). Nature’s Hausmann, A., Slotow, R., Burns, J. K., Perspectives on Urban Landscape Quality.
Contributions to People and Human & Di Minin, E. (2016). The ecosystem In R. C. Grifoni, R. D’Onofrio, & M. Sargolini,
Well-being in a Nordic coastal context. service of sense of place: Benefits Quality of Life in Urban Landscapes
In A. Belgrano (Ed.), Biodiversity and for human well-being and biodiversity (pp. 335-340). Springer International
ecosystem services in Nordic coastal conservation. Environmental Conservation, Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
ecosystems: An IPBES-like assessment. 43(2), 117-127. https://doi.org/10.1017/ 319-65581-9_29
Volume 1. The general overview. (2018:536). S0376892915000314
Nordic Council of Ministers. https://doi. Hjerppe, T., & Väisänen, S. (2015). A
org/10.6027/TN2018-536 Heagney, E. C., Rose, J. M., Ardeshiri, A., practical tool for selecting cost-effective
& Kovac, M. (2019). The economic value combinations of phosphorus loading
Hanley, N., & Barbier, E. (2009). Pricing of tourism and recreation across a large mitigation measures in Finnish catchments.
nature: Cost-benefit analysis and protected area network. Land Use Policy, International Journal of River Basin
environmental policy. Edward Elgar. 88, 104084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Management, 13(3), 363-376. https://doi.or
landusepol.2019.104084 g/10.1080/15715124.2015.1012516
Hanley, N., & Czajkowski, M. (2019).
The Role of Stated Preference Valuation Heal, G. (2005). Chapter 21 Intertemporal HM Treasury. (2020). The Green Book
Methods in Understanding Choices and Welfare Economics and the Environment. and accompanying guidance and
Informing Policy. Review of Environmental In Handbook of Environmental Economics documents. https://www.gov.uk/
Economics and Policy, 13(2), 248- (Vol. 3, pp. 1105-1145). Elsevier. https://doi. government/collections/the-green-book-
266. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez005 org/10.1016/S1574-0099(05)03021-4 and-accompanying-guidance-and-
documents
Hanley, N., Wright, R. E., & Hegetschweiler, K. T., de Vries, S.,
Adamowicz, V. (1998). Using Choice Arnberger, A., Bell, S., Brennan, M., Siter, Hobern, D., Baptiste, B., Copas, K.,
Experiments to Value the Environment. N., Olafsson, A. S., Voigt, A., & Hunziker, Guralnick, R., Hahn, A., van Huis, E.,
232
Kim, E.-S., McGeoch, M., Naicker, I., en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO: IUCN. (2012). IUCN Habitats
Navarro, L., Noesgaard, D., Price, M., :P12100_ILO_CODE:C169 Classification Scheme.
Rodrigues, A., Schigel, D., Sheffield, C.
A., & Wieczorek, J. (2019). Connecting Iovanna, R., & Griffiths, C. (2006). Clean Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Martín-López,
data and expertise: A new alliance for water, ecological benefits, and benefits B., Barton, D. N., Gomez-Baggethun,
biodiversity knowledge. Biodiversity Data transfer: A work in progress at the U.S. E., Boeraeve, F., McGrath, F. L., Vierikko,
Journal, 7, e33679. https://doi.org/10.3897/ EPA. Ecological Economics, 60(2), K., Geneletti, D., Sevecke, K. J., Pipart,
BDJ.7.e33679 473-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. N., Primmer, E., Mederly, P., Schmidt, S.,
ecolecon.2006.06.012 Aragão, A., Baral, H., Bark, R. H., Briceno,
Horne, P., Boxall, P. C., & Adamowicz, W. T., Brogna, D., … Washbourne, C.-L.
L. (2005). Multiple-use management of IPBES. (2015). Preliminary guide regarding (2016). A new valuation school: Integrating
forest recreation sites: A spatially explicit diverse conceptualization of multiple diverse values of nature in resource and
choice experiment. Forest Ecology and values of nature and its benefits, including land use decisions. Ecosystem Services,
Management, 207(1-2), 189-199. https:// biodiversity and ecosystem functions 22, 213-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.026 and services (deliverable 3 (d)). IPBES ecoser.2016.11.007
Secretariat. https://ipbes.net/sites/default/
Horowitz, D. M. (2009). A review of files/downloads/IPBES-4-INF-13_EN.pdf Jacobs, S., Martín-López, B., Barton, D.
consensus analysis methods in consumer N., Dunford, R., Harrison, P. A., Kelemen,
culture, organizational culture and national IPBES. (2018). The IPBES regional E., Saarikoski, H., Termansen, M., García-
culture research. Consumption Markets assessment report on biodiversity and Llorente, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E.,
& Culture, 12(1), 47-64. https://doi. ecosystem services for Europe and Central Kopperoinen, L., Luque, S., Palomo, I.,
org/10.1080/10253860802560839 Asia. Rounsevell, M., Fischer, M., Torre- Priess, J. A., Rusch, G. M., Tenerelli, P.,
Marin Rando, A. and Mader, A. (eds.). Turkelboom, F., Demeyer, R., Hauck, J.,
Hotelling, H. (1947). Multivariate quality Secretariat of the Intergovernmental … Smith, R. (2018). The means determine
control. In C. Eisenhart, M. W. Hastay and Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity the end – Pursuing integrated valuation
W. A. Wallis eds, Techniques of Statistical and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. in practice. Ecosystem Services, 29,
Analysis. McGraw-Hill. 892 pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/ 515-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
zenodo.3237428 ECOSER.2017.07.011
Houkamau, C. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2019).
The role of culture and identity for economic IIPBES. (2019a). Global assessment report Jerneck, A., & Olsson, L. (2013).
values: A quantitative study of Māori on biodiversity and ecosystem services More than trees! Understanding the
attitudes. Journal of the Royal Society of of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy agroforestry adoption gap in subsistence
New Zealand, 49(sup1), 118-136. https:// Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem agriculture: Insights from narrative walks
doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2019.1650782 Services. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, in Kenya. Journal of Rural Studies, 32,
and H. T. Ngo (editors). IPBES secretariat, 114-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Howarth, R. B., & Wilson, M. A. (2006). Bonn, Germany. 1148 pages. https://doi. jrurstud.2013.04.004
A Theoretical Approach to Deliberative org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673
Valuation: Aggregation by Mutual Consent. Jetz, W., McGeoch, M. A., Guralnick,
Land Economics, 82(1), 1-16. https://doi. IPBES. (2019b). Summary for policymakers R., Ferrier, S., Beck, J., Costello, M. J.,
org/10.3368/le.82.1.1 of the global assessment report on Fernandez, M., Geller, G. N., Keil, P.,
biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Merow, C., Meyer, C., Muller-Karger, F. E.,
Huambachano, M. (2018). Enacting food Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform Pereira, H. M., Regan, E. C., Schmeller, D.
sovereignty in Aotearoa New Zealand and on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. S., & Turak, E. (2019). Essential biodiversity
Peru: Revitalizing Indigenous knowledge, Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio, H. T. Ngo, variables for mapping and monitoring
food practices and ecological philosophies. M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, species populations. Nature Ecology
Agroecology and Sustainable Food K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. & Evolution, 3(4), 539-551. https://doi.
Systems, 42(9), 1003-1028. https://doi.org/ Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. org/10.1038/s41559-019-0826-1
10.1080/21683565.2018.1468380 Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich,
Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, Johansson, P.-O. (1992). Altruism in
Hung, M.-L., Yang, W.-F., & Ma, H.-W. A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. cost-benefit analysis. Environmental and
(2006). Consensus analysis model for Roy Chowdhury, Y. J. Shin, I. J. Visseren- Resource Economics, 2, 605-613.
environmental mangaement with fuzzy Hamakers, K. J. Willis, and C. N. Zayas
linguistic variables. 16(1), 9. (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. Johansson-Stenman, O., & Konow, J.
56 pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/ (2010). Fair Air: Distributive Justice and
Hunn, E. (1977). Tzeltal folk zoology: The zenodo.3553579 Environmental Economics. Environmental
classification of discontinuities in nature. and Resource Economics, 46(2), 147-
Academic Press. IPBES. (2019c). Report of the second 166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-
Indigenous and local knowledge dialogue 9356-7
Hunn, E. (1982). The Utilitarian Factor in workshop for the IPBES assessment of
Folk Biological Classification. American diverse conceptualisations of multiple values Johansson-Stenman, O., & Svedsäter, H.
Anthropologist, 84(4), 830-847. https://doi. of nature (p. 54). IPBES. (2012). Self-image and valuation of moral
org/10.1525/aa.1982.84.4.02a00070 goods: Stated versus actual willingness
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2009). Worldviews to pay. Journal of Economic Behavior &
International Labour Organization. and their relation to science. Science & Organization, 84(3), 879-891. https://doi.
(1989). Convention C169—Indigenous Education, 18(6-7), 729-745. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.10.006
and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 org/10.1007/s11191-007-9087-5
(No. 169). https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/
233
Johnson, J. T., Howitt, R., Cajete, G., Mateos, B. P., & Santos, R. (2006). 21, 358-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Berkes, F., Louis, R. P., & Kliskey, A. (2016). Participatory Methods for Water Resources ecoser.2016.10.006
Weaving Indigenous and sustainability Planning. Environment and Planning
sciences to diversify our methods. C: Government and Policy, 24(2), 215- Kenter, J. O., Reed, M. S., & Fazey, I.
Sustainability Science, 11(1), 1-11. https:// 234. https://doi.org/10.1068/c04102s (2016). The deliberative value formation
doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0349-x model. Ecosystem Services, 21,
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The 194-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Johnston, R. J., Besedin, E. Y., & Wardwell, experience of nature: A psychological ecoser.2016.09.015
R. F. (2003). Modeling relationships perspective (1st ed.). Cambridge
between use and nonuse values for surface University Press. Klain, S. C., Satterfield, T. A., & Chan,
water quality: A meta-analysis: Water K. M. A. (2014). What matters and why?
Resources Research, 39(12). https://doi. Kaufman, S., Elliot, M., & Shmueli, D. Ecosystem services and their bundled
org/10.1029/2003WR002649 (2003). Frames, Framing and Reframing. qualities. Ecological Economics, 107,
Beyond Intractability. https://www. 310-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, beyondintractability.org/essay/framing ecolecon.2014.09.003
W. (Vic), Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron,
T. A., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Ryan, Kaul, S., Boyle, K. J., Kuminoff, N. V., Kling, C. L., Phaneuf, D. J., & Zhao, J.
M., Scarpa, R., Tourangeau, R., & Vossler, Parmeter, C. F., & Pope, J. C. (2013). What (2012). From Exxon to BP: Has Some
C. A. (2017). Contemporary Guidance for can we learn from benefit transfer errors? Number Become Better than No Number?
Stated Preference Studies. Journal of the Evidence from 20 years of research on Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4),
Association of Environmental and Resource convergent validity. Journal of Environmental 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.3
Economists, 4(2), 319-405. https://doi. Economics and Management, 66(1),
org/10.1086/691697 90-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Knackmuhs, E., Farmer, J., & Knapp,
jeem.2013.03.001 D. (2019). The Relationship between
Johnston, R. J., Rolfe, J., Rosenberger, Narratives, Wildlife Value Orientations,
R. S., & Brouwer, R. (Eds.). (2015). Keeler, B. L., Polasky, S., Brauman, K. Attitudes, and Policy Preferences. Society &
Benefit Transfer of Environmental and A., Johnson, K. A., Finlay, J. C., O’Neill, Natural Resources, 32(3), 303-321. https://
Resource Values (Vol. 14). Springer A., Kovacs, K., & Dalzell, B. (2012). doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1517916
Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- Linking water quality and well-being for
94-017-9930-0 improved assessment and valuation of Konow, J. (2010). Mixed feelings: Theories
ecosystem services. Proceedings of the of and evidence on giving. Journal of Public
Johnston, R. J., Rolfe, J., & Zawojska, E. National Academy of Sciences, 109(45), Economics, 94(3-4), 279-297. https://doi.
(2018). Benefit Transfer of Environmental 18619-18624. https://doi.org/10.1073/ org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.11.008
and Resource Values: Progress, pnas.1215991109
Prospects and Challenges. International Kornek, U., Klenert, D., Edenhofer, O.,
Review of Environmental and Resource Keith, D. A., Rodríguez, J. P., Rodríguez- & Fleurbaey, M. (2021). The social cost
Economics, 12(2-3), 177-266. https://doi. Clark, K. M., Nicholson, E., Aapala, K., of carbon and inequality: When local
org/10.1561/101.00000102 Alonso, A., Asmussen, M., Bachman, S., redistribution shapes global carbon prices.
Basset, A., Barrow, E. G., Benson, J. S., Journal of Environmental Economics and
Johnston, R. J., & Rosenberger, R. S. Bishop, M. J., Bonifacio, R., Brooks, T. Management, 107, 102450. https://doi.
(2010). Methods, Trends and Controversies M., Burgman, M. A., Comer, P., Comín, org/10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102450
in Contemporary Benefit Transfer. Journal of F. A., Essl, F., Faber-Langendoen, D.,
Economic Surveys, 24(3), 479-510. https:// … Zambrano-Martínez, S. (2013). Kotchen, M. J., & Reiling, S. D. (2000).
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2009.00592.x Scientific Foundations for an IUCN Red Environmental attitudes, motivations, and
List of Ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 8(5), contingent valuation of nonuse values:
Kadykalo, A. N., López-Rodriguez, M. e62111. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. A case study involving endangered
D., Ainscough, J., Droste, N., Ryu, H., pone.0062111 species. Ecological Economics, 32(1),
Ávila-Flores, G., Le Clec’h, S., Muñoz, 93-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-
M. C., Nilsson, L., Rana, S., Sarkar, P., Kelemen, E., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. 8009(99)00069-5
Sevecke, K. J., & Harmáčková, Z. V. (2008). Participatory Methods for Valuing
(2019). Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ Ecosystem Services. 21. Kowalski, K., Stagl, S., Madlener, R., &
and ‘nature’s contributions to people’. Omann, I. (2009). Sustainable energy
Ecosystems and People, 15(1), 269- Kenter, J. O. (2016). Integrating deliberative futures: Methodological challenges in
287. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.20 monetary valuation, systems modelling and combining scenarios and participatory
19.1669713 participatory mapping to assess shared multi-criteria analysis. European Journal
values of ecosystem services. Ecosystem of Operational Research, 197(3),
Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1992). Services, 21, 291-307. https://doi. 1063-1074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Valuing public goods: The purchase of org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.010 ejor.2007.12.049
moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management, 22(1), Kenter, J. O., Bryce, R., Christie, M., Kremen, C. (2005). Managing ecosystem
57-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095- Cooper, N., Hockley, N., Irvine, K. N., services: What do we need to know about
0696(92)90019-S Fazey, I., O’Brien, L., Orchard-Webb, their ecology?: Ecology of ecosystem
J., Ravenscroft, N., Raymond, C. M., services. Ecology Letters, 8(5), 468-
Kallis, G., Videira, N., Antunes, P., Pereira, Reed, M. S., Tett, P., & Watson, V. (2016). 479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-
Â. G., Spash, C. L., Coccossis, H., Shared values and deliberative valuation: 0248.2005.00751.x
Quintana, S. C., del Moral, L., Hatzilacou, Future directions. Ecosystem Services,
D., Lobo, G., Mexa, A., Paneque, P.,
234
Krutilla, J. V. (1967). Conservation Lavorel, S., Bayer, A., Bondeau, A., 130-139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
Reconsidered. The American Economic Lautenbach, S., Ruiz-Frau, A., Schulp, 5871.2007.00443.x
Review, 57(4), 777-786. N., Seppelt, R., Verburg, P., Teeffelen, A.
van, Vannier, C., Arneth, A., Cramer, W., Lundhede, T., Jacobsen, J. B., Hanley,
Kumar, P., Debele, S. E., Sahani, J., Rawat, & Marba, N. (2017). Pathways to bridge N., Strange, N., & Thorsen, B. J. (2015).
N., Marti-Cardona, B., Alfieri, S. M., Basu, the biophysical realism gap in ecosystem Incorporating Outcome Uncertainty and
B., Basu, A. S., Bowyer, P., Charizopoulos, services mapping approaches. Ecological Prior Outcome Beliefs in Stated Preferences.
N., Jaakko, J., Loupis, M., Menenti, M., Indicators, 74, 241-260. https://doi. Land Economics, 91(2), 296-316. https://
Mickovski, S. B., Pfeiffer, J., Pilla, F., Pröll, org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.015 doi.org/10.3368/le.91.2.296
J., Pulvirenti, B., Rutzinger, M., … Zieher,
T. (2021). An overview of monitoring Lenton, T. M., Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Lupi, F., Phaneuf, D. J., & von Haefen, R.
methods for assessing the performance Rahmstorf, S., Richardson, K., Steffen, H. (2020). Best Practices for Implementing
of nature-based solutions against natural W., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2019). Climate Recreation Demand Models. Review of
hazards. Earth-Science Reviews, 217, tipping points—Too risky to bet against. Environmental Economics and Policy, 14(2),
103603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Nature, 575(7784), 592-595. https://doi. 302-323. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/
earscirev.2021.103603 org/10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0 reaa007
Kurth, M. H., Larkin, S., Keisler, J. M., & Lewicki, R., Gray, B., Gray, P. and S. E. P. Lyver, P. O. B., Timoti, P., Jones, C. J.,
Linkov, I. (2017). Trends and applications F. F. B., & Elliott, M. (2003). Making Sense Richardson, S. J., Tahi, B. L., & Greenhalgh,
of multi-criteria decision analysis: Use in of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: S. (2017). An indigenous community-based
government agencies. Environment Systems Concepts and Cases. Island Press. monitoring system for assessing forest
and Decisions, 37(2), 134-143. https://doi. health in New Zealand. Biodiversity and
org/10.1007/s10669-017-9644-7 List, J. A. (2007). On the Interpretation of Conservation, 26(13), 3183-3212. https://
Giving in Dictator Games. Journal of Political doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1142-6
Kweon, B.-S., Ellis, C. D., Leiva, P. I., Economy, 115(3), 482-493. https://doi.
& Rogers, G. O. (2010). Landscape org/10.1086/519249 Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete,
Components, Land Use, and Neighborhood C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J. P., Grizzetti,
Satisfaction. Environment and Planning List, J. A., & Gallet, C. A. (2001). What B., Drakou, E. G., Notte, A. L., Zulian,
B: Planning and Design, 37(3), 500- Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities G., Bouraoui, F., Luisa Paracchini, M.,
517. https://doi.org/10.1068/b35059 Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Braat, L., & Bidoglio, G. (2012). Mapping
Values? Environmental and Resource ecosystem services for policy support and
Lackenbauer, P. W., & Belanger, Y. D. Economics, 20(3), 241-254. https://doi. decision making in the European Union.
(2014). Blockades Or Breakthroughs?: org/10.1023/A:1012791822804 Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 31-39. https://
First Nations Confront the Canadian State. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004
McGill-Queen’s University Press. Lliso, B., Mariel, P., Pascual, U., & Engel,
S. (2020). Increasing the credibility and Maldonado, J. H., Moreno-Sanchez, R.,
LaDuke, W. (1999). All Our Relations: salience of valuation through deliberation: Henao-Henao, J. P., & Bruner, A. (2019).
Native Struggles for Land and Life. South Lessons from the Global South. Global Does exclusion matter in conservation
End Press. Environmental Change, 62, 102065. https:// agreements? A case of mangrove users in
doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102065 the Ecuadorian coast using participatory
Lammerant, J. (2019). NCAVES – State of choice experiments. World Development,
play of business accounting and reporting Lo, A. Y., & Spash, C. L. (2012). Deliberative 123, UNSP 104619. https://doi.
on ecosystems. Business consultation. monetary valuation: In search of a org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104619
UN SEEA. democratic and value plural approach to
environmental policy. Journal of Economic Malinga, R., Gordon, L. J., Jewitt, G., &
Lammerant, J. (2021). Business and Surveys, 27(4), 768-789. https://doi. Lindborg, R. (2015). Mapping ecosystem
Natural Capital Accounting Case Study: org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00718.x services across scales and continents – A
Ambuja Cement, India (p. 45) [Report of the review. Ecosystem Services, 13, 57-63. https://
NCAVES project]. United Nations Statistics Loomis, J. (1988). Broadening the Concept doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.006
Division, Department of Economic and and Measurement of Existence Value.
Social Affairs. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Maradan, D. (2017). Assessment of the
Resource Economics, 17(1), 23-29. https:// economic, social and environment benefits
Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, doi.org/10.1017/S0899367X00001604 of the Rubaya Green Village in Gicumbi
R., & Mermet, L. (2013). Use of ecosystem District, Rwanda, and benefits of project
services economic valuation for decision Loomis, J. B. (2015). The Use of Benefit replication. https://pea4sdgs.org/
making: Questioning a literature blindspot. Transfer in the United States. In R. J. knowledge/publications/pei-publications/
Journal of Environmental Management, Johnston, J. Rolfe, R. S. Rosenberger, assessment-of-the-economic-social-and-
119, 208-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. & R. Brouwer (Eds.), Benefit Transfer of environment-benefits-of-the-rubaya-green-
jenvman.2013.01.008 Environmental and Resource Values (Vol. 14, village-in-gicumbi-district-rwanda-and-
pp. 61-70). Springer Netherlands. https:// benefits-of-project-replication
Lautenbach, S., Mupepele, A.-C., Dormann, doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9930-0_3
C. F., Lee, H., Schmidt, S., Scholte, S. Markanday, A., Galarraga, I., & Markandya,
S. K., Seppelt, R., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., Louis, R. P. (2007). Can You Hear us A. (2019). A critical review of cost-benefit
Verhagen, W., & Volk, M. (2015). Blind Now? Voices from the Margin: Using analysis for climate change adaptation
spots in ecosystem services research and Indigenous Methodologies in Geographic in cities. Climate Change Economics,
implementation [Preprint]. Ecology. https:// Research. Geographical Research, 45(2), 10(04), 1950014. https://doi.org/10.1142/
doi.org/10.1101/033498 S2010007819500143
235
Marre, J.-B., & Billé, R. (2019). A demand- McDermott, M., Mahanty, S., & Citizens’ Juries on Wind Farms. Journal of
driven approach to ecosystem services Schreckenberg, K. (2013). Examining Deliberative Democracy, 17(2). https://doi.
economic valuation: Lessons from Pacific equity: A multidimensional framework for org/10.16997/jdd.986
island countries and territories. Ecosystem assessing equity in payments for ecosystem
Services, 39, 100975. https://doi. services. Environmental Science & Policy, Meller, L., Cabeza, M., Pironon, S., Barbet-
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100975 33, 416-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Massin, M., Maiorano, L., Georges, D., &
envsci.2012.10.006 Thuiller, W. (2014). Ensemble distribution
Martin, A., Gross-Camp, N., & Akol, models in conservation prioritization: From
A. (2015). Towards an Explicit Justice McDonough, K., Hutchinson, S., Moore, consensus predictions to consensus reserve
Framing of the Social Impacts of T., & Hutchinson, J. M. S. (2017). Analysis networks. Diversity and Distributions, 20(3),
Conservation. Conservation and Society, of publication trends in ecosystem 309-321. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12162
13(2), 166. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972- services research. Ecosystem Services,
4923.164200 25, 82-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Mendoza-Denton, R., & Hansen, N. (2007).
ecoser.2017.03.022 Networks of Meaning: Intergroup Relations,
Martin, A., Gross-Camp, N., Kebede, B., Cultural Worldviews, and Knowledge
McGuire, S., & Munyarukaza, J. (2014). McElwee, P., Fernández-Llamazares, Activation Principles: Networks of Meaning.
Whose environmental justice? Exploring Á., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Babai, D., Social and Personality Psychology
local and global perspectives in a payments Bates, P., Galvin, K., Guèze, M., Liu, J., Compass, 1(1), 68-83. https://doi.
for ecosystem services scheme in Rwanda. Molnár, Z., Ngo, H. T., Reyes-García, org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00010.x
Geoforum, 54, 167-177. https://doi. V., Roy Chowdhury, R., Samakov, A.,
org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.02.006 Shrestha, U. B., Díaz, S., & Brondízio, E. S. Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. L.
(2020). Working with Indigenous and local (1956). The focused interview: A manual
Martínez-Harms, M. J., & Balvanera, P. knowledge (ILK) in large-scale ecological of problems and procedures (1st ed). Free
(2012). Methods for mapping ecosystem assessments: Reviewing the experience of Pree ; Collier Macmillan.
service supply: A review. International the IPBES Global Assessment. Journal of
Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Applied Ecology, 57(9), 1666-1676. https:// Merton, R. K., & Kendall, P. L. (1946). The
Services & Management, 8(1-2), 17- doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13705 Focused Interview. American Journal of
25. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.201 Sociology, 51(6), 541-557. https://doi.
2.663792 McFadden, D., & Train, K. (2017). org/10.1086/219886
Contingent Valuation of Environmental
Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García- Goods. Edward Elgar Publishing. https:// Meya, J. N. (2020). Environmental Inequality
Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, doi.org/10.4337/9781786434692 and Economic Valuation. Environmental
I., Amo, D. G. D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., and Resource Economics, 76(2-3), 235-
Oteros-Rozas, E., Palacios-Agundez, I., McGillivray, M., & Noorbakhsh, F. (2007). 270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-
Willaarts, B., González, J. A., Santos-Martín, Composite Indexes of Human Well-being: 00423-2
F., Onaindia, M., López-Santiago, C., & Past, Present and Future. In M. McGillivray
Montes, C. (2012). Uncovering Ecosystem (Ed.), Human Well-Being (pp. 113-134). Meya, J. N., Drupp, M. A., & Hanley, N.
Service Bundles through Social Preferences. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi. (2021). Testing structural benefit transfer:
PLoS ONE, 7(6), e38970. https://doi. org/10.1057/9780230625600_5 The role of income inequality. Resource and
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970 Energy Economics, 64, 101217. https://doi.
McGregor, D. (2004). Coming Full Circle: org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2021.101217
Martín-López, B., Leister, I., Lorenzo Cruz, Indigenous Knowledge, Environment, and
P., Palomo, I., Grêt-Regamey, A., Harrison, Our Future. The American Indian Quarterly, Meyerhoff, J., Liebe, U., & Hartje, V. (2009).
P. A., Lavorel, S., Locatelli, B., Luque, S., 28(3), 385-410. https://doi.org/10.1353/ Benefits of biodiversity enhancement of
& Walz, A. (2019). Nature’s contributions to aiq.2004.0101 nature-oriented silviculture: Evidence from
people in mountains: A review. PLOS ONE, two choice experiments in Germany. Journal
14(6), e0217847. https://doi.org/10.1371/ McVittie, A., & Hussain, S. (2013). of Forest Economics, 15(1-2), 37-58. https://
journal.pone.0217847 The Economics of Ecosystems and doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2008.03.003
Biodiversity—Valuation Database Manual (p.
Martin-Ortega, J. (2012). Economic 26). TEEB, UNEP. Miller, M., Kaneko, J., Bartram, P., Marks,
prescriptions and policy applications J., & Brewer, D. (2004). Cultural Consensus
in the implementation of the European MEA. (2005). Ecosystems and human well- Analysis and Environmental Anthropology:
Water Framework Directive. Environmental being: Biodiversity synthesis. https://www. Yellowfin Tuna Fishery Management in
Science & Policy, 24, 83-91. https://doi. millenniumassessment.org/documents/ Hawaii. Cross-cultural Research – CROSS-
org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.002 document.354.aspx.pdf CULT RES, 38, 289-314. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1069397104264278
Mayer, M., & Job, H. (2014). The Meginnis, K., Hanley, N., Mujumbusi, L., &
economics of protected areas—A Lamberton, P. H. L. (2020). Non-monetary Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research
European perspective. Zeitschrift Fur numeraires: Varying the payment vehicle in interviewing: Context and narrative. Harvard
Wirtschaftsgeographie, 58(2-3), 73-97. a choice experiment for health interventions University, Press.
in Uganda. Ecological Economics, 170,
Mazur, K. E., & Asah, S. T. (2013). Clarifying 106569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Monzón-Acuña. (2004). Enfoque de
standpoints in the gray wolf recovery ecolecon.2019.106569 género para la valoración económica
conflict: Procuring management and policy de los manglares de Tumbes [Master
forethought. Biological Conservation, Mehltretter Drury, S., Elstub, S., Escobar, of Science, Universidad Nacional de
167, 79-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. O., & Roberts, J. (2021). Deliberative Ingenieria]. https://repositorioslatino
biocon.2013.07.017 Quality and Expertise: Uses of Evidence in americanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/2342541
236
Morrison, D. A. (2016). The Invention of Studies. Technical Report (p. 30) [Technical Nilsson, A. (2014). Personality psychology
Nature: The Adventures of Alexander report]. Prepared on behalf of the UN-REDD as the integrative study of traits and
von Humboldt, the Lost Hero of Science Programme. UNEP World Conservation worldviews. New Ideas in Psychology,
(UK). The Invention of Nature: Alexander Monitoring Centre. 32, 18-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
von Humboldt’s New World (USA). — By newideapsych.2013.04.008
Andrea Wulf. Systematic Biology, 65(6), Natural Capital Coalition. (2016). Natural
1117-1119. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/ Capital Protocol. (Online) Available at: www. Nobel, A., Lizin, S., Brouwer, R., Bruns,
syw062 naturalcapitalcoalition.org/protocol (p. 136). S. B., Stern, D. I., & Malina, R. (2020). Are
biodiversity losses valued differently when
Morton, O. (2015). The planet remade: How Navrud, L., & Pruckner, G. J. (1997). they are caused by human activities? A
geoengineering could change the world. Environmental Valuation – To Use or Not meta-analysis of the non-use valuation
Princeton University Press. to Use? Environmental and Resource literature. Environmental Research
Economics, 10, 26. Letters, 15(7), 073003. https://doi.
Munda, G. (2004). Social multi-criteria org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8ec2
evaluation: Methodological foundations Nazarea, V. D. (2006). Local Knowledge
and operational consequences. European and Memory in Biodiversity Conservation. Nunes, P. A. L. D., & Schokkaert, E.
Journal of Operational Research, 158(3), Annual Review of Anthropology, 35(1), (2003). Identifying the warm glow
662-677. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377- 317-335. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. effect in contingent valuation. Journal
2217(03)00369-2 anthro.35.081705.123252 of Environmental Economics and
Management, 45(2), 231-245. https://doi.
Murphy, J. J., Allen, G., Stevens, T. H., & Nemogá, G. (2019). Indigenous org/10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00051-7
Weatherhead, D. (2005). A Meta-Analysis Agrobiodiversity and Governance. In K.
of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Zimmerer & S. Haan (Eds.), Agrobiodiversity: Nyborg, K. (2000). Homo Economicus
Valuation. Resource and Environmental Integrating Knowledge for a Sustainable and Homo Politicus: Interpretation and
Economics, 30(3), 44. Future (Vol. 24, pp. 241-263). MIT Press. aggregation of environmental values. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization, 42(3),
Mussanhane, J., Nhamuco, J., & Virtanen, Nesbitt, L., Hotte, N., Barron, S., Cowan, 305-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-
P. (2000). A traditionally protected forest J., & Sheppard, S. R. J. (2017). The social 2681(00)00091-3
as a conservation area: A case study from and economic value of cultural ecosystem
Mozambique. In P. Virtanen & M. Nummelin services provided by urban forests in O´Flaherty, M. (1997). Managing a
(Eds.), Forests, chiefs and peasants in North America: A review and suggestions Commons: Community management of
Africa: Local management of natural for future research. Urban Forestry & Indigenous woodlands in Chimanimani
resources in Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Urban Greening, 25, 103-111. https://doi. District, Zimbabwe [PhD Thesis]. University
Mozambique. University of Joensuu. https:// org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.005 of Toronto.
www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Forests%
2C-chiefs-and-peasants-in-Africa%3A-local- Newbold, S. C., & Johnston, R. J. (2020). Obst, C., Hein, L., & Edens, B. (2016).
of-in-Virtanen-Nummelinf32eff711bb05d841 Valuing non-market valuation studies National Accounting and the Valuation of
8a87ab2932cf2e3d1c84528 using meta-analysis: A demonstration Ecosystem Assets and Their Services.
using estimates of willingness-to-pay Environmental and Resource Economics,
Nahuelhual, L., Carmona, A., Aguayo, M., & for water quality improvements. Journal 64(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Echeverria, C. (2014). Land use change and of Environmental Economics and s10640-015-9921-1
ecosystem services provision: A case study Management, 104, 102379. https://doi.
of recreation and ecotourism opportunities org/10.1016/j.jeem.2020.102379 Ode, Å., Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Messager, P.,
in southern Chile. Landscape Ecology, & Miller, D. (2009). Indicators of perceived
29(2), 329-344. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Newbold, S., David Simpson, R., Matthew naturalness as drivers of landscape
s10980-013-9958-x Massey, D., Heberling, M. T., Wheeler, W., preference. Journal of Environmental
Corona, J., & Hewitt, J. (2018). Benefit Management, 90(1), 375-383. https://doi.
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, Transfer Challenges: Perspectives from U.S. org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013
R., Fisher, B., Green, R. E., Lehner, B., Practitioners. Environmental and Resource
Malcolm, T. R., & Ricketts, T. H. (2008). Economics, 69(3), 467-481. https://doi. OECD. (2014). The Cost of Air
Global mapping of ecosystem services and org/10.1007/s10640-017-0207-7 Pollution: Health Impacts of Road
conservation priorities. Proceedings of the Transport. OECD. https://doi.
National Academy of Sciences, 105(28), Newman, I., & Ramlo, S. (2010). org/10.1787/9789264210448-en
9495-9500. https://doi.org/10.1073/ Using Q Methodology and Q Factor
pnas.0707823105 Analysis in Mixed Methods Research. OECD. (2018). Cost-Benefit Analysis and
In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie, SAGE the Environment: Further Developments
Naidoo, R., Gerkey, D., Hole, D., Pfaff, A., Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Policy Use. OECD. https://doi.
Ellis, A. M., Golden, C. D., Herrera, D., & Behavioral Research (pp. 505-530). org/10.1787/9789264085169-en
Johnson, K., Mulligan, M., Ricketts, T. H., & SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.
Fisher, B. (2019). Evaluating the impacts of org/10.4135/9781506335193.n20 Oerlemans, L. A. G., Chan, K.-Y., &
protected areas on human well-being across Volschenk, J. (2016). Willingness to pay for
the developing world. Science Advances, NHMRC & Australian Research Council green electricity: A review of the contingent
5(4). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav3006 and Universities Australia. (2007). National valuation literature and its sources of
Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human error. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Narloch, U. (2014). The Potential Economic Research (2007)- Updated 2018. National Reviews, 66, 875-885. https://doi.
Values of the Multiple Benefits from REDD+ Health and Medical Research Council. www. org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.054
in Panama: A Synthesis of Existing Valuation nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/e72
237
O’Garra, T. (2009). Bequest Values for factors among Swedish farmers. Biomass N. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions
Marine Resources: How Important for and Bioenergy, 50, 25-34. https://doi. to people: The IPBES approach. Current
Indigenous Communities in Less-Developed org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.09.058 Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,
Economies? Environmental and Resource 26-27, 7-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Economics, 44(2), 179-202. https://doi. Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Daw, cosust.2016.12.006
org/10.1007/s10640-009-9279-3 T. M., Bohensky, E. L., Butler, J. R. A., Hill,
R., Martin-Ortega, J., Quinlan, A., Ravera, Pasman, H. J., & Rogers, W. J. (2018).
O’Hara, S. U. (1996). Discursive ethics in F., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Thyresson, M., Mistry, How trustworthy are risk assessment
ecosystems valuation and environmental J., Palomo, I., Peterson, G. D., Plieninger, results, and what can be done about the
policy. Ecological Economics, 16(2), T., Waylen, K. A., Beach, D. M., Bohnet, uncertainties they are plagued with? Journal
95-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921- I. C., Hamann, M., … Vilardy, S. P. (2015). of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries,
8009(95)00085-2 Participatory scenario planning in place- 55, 162-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
based social-ecological research: Insights jlp.2018.06.004
Ojea, E., & Loureiro, M. L. (2011). Identifying and experiences from 23 case studies.
the scope effect on a meta-analysis of Ecology and Society, 20(4), art32. https:// Pasman, H., & Rogers, W. (2020). How
biodiversity valuation studies. Resource and doi.org/10.5751/ES-07985-200432 to treat expert judgment? With certainty
Energy Economics, 33(3), 706-724. https:// it contains uncertainty! Journal of Loss
doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.03.002 Paine, R. T. (1969). A Note on Trophic Prevention in the Process Industries,
Complexity and Community Stability. 66, 104200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Olander, L., Polasky, S., Kagan, J. S., The American Naturalist, 103(929), 91- jlp.2020.104200
Johnston, R. J., Wainger, L., Saah, D., 93. https://doi.org/10.1086/282586
Maguire, L., Boyd, J., & Yoskowitz, D. Pearce, D. (1998). Auditing the Earth:
(2017). So you want your research to be Palomo, I., Locatelli, B., Otero, I., Colloff, The Value of the World’s Ecosystem
relevant? Building the bridge between M., Crouzat, E., Cuni-Sanchez, A., Gómez- Services and Natural Capital. Environment:
ecosystem services research and practice. Baggethun, E., González-García, A., Science and Policy for Sustainable
Ecosystem Services, 26, 170-182. https:// Grêt-Regamey, A., Jiménez-Aceituno, A., Development, 40(2), 23-28. https://doi.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.003 Martín-López, B., Pascual, U., Zafra-Calvo, org/10.1080/00139159809605092
N., Bruley, E., Fischborn, M., Metz, R.,
Oleson, K. L. L., Barnes, M., Brander, L. M., & Lavorel, S. (2021). Assessing nature- Pearce, D. (2002). An Intellectual History of
Oliver, T. A., van Beek, I., Zafindrasilivonona, based solutions for transformative change. Environmental Economics. Annual Review
B., & van Beukering, P. (2015). Cultural One Earth, 4(5), 730-741. https://doi. of Energy and the Environment, 27(1),
bequest values for ecosystem service org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.013 57-81. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
flows among indigenous fishers: A discrete energy.27.122001.083429
choice experiment validated with mixed Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., López-
methods. Ecological Economics, 114, Santiago, C., & Montes, C. (2011). Pieraccini, M. (2015). Rethinking
104-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Participatory Scenario Planning for Participation in Environmental Decision-
ecolecon.2015.02.028 Protected Areas Management under the Making: Epistemologies of Marine
Ecosystem Services Framework: The Conservation in South-East England.
Olsen, J. R., Nicholls, N., & Mitchell, R. Doñana Social-Ecological System in Journal of Environmental Law, 27(1), 45-
(2019). Are urban landscapes associated Southwestern Spain. Ecology and Society, 67. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/equ035
with reported life satisfaction and inequalities 16(1), art23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-
in life satisfaction at the city level? A cross- 03862-160123 Pihama, L. (2010). Kaupapa Maori
sectional study of 66 European cities. Social Theory: Transforming Theory in
Science & Medicine, 226, 263-274. https:// Palomo, I., Willemen, L., Drakou, E., Aotearoa. He PUKenga Korero,
doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.03.009 Burkhard, B., Crossman, N., Bellamy, C., 9(2). https://natlib.govt.nz/records/
Burkhard, K., Campagne, C. S., Dangol, A., 30045298?search%5Bpath%5D=items&
Opdam, P., Steingröver, E., & Rooij, Franke, J., Kulczyk, S., Le Clec’h, S., Abdul search%5Btext%5D=Ethnoscience
S. van. (2006). Ecological networks: A Malak, D., Muñoz, L., Narusevicius, V.,
spatial concept for multi-actor planning of Ottoy, S., Roelens, J., Sing, L., Thomas, A., Pihama, L., Cram, F., & Walker, S. (2002).
sustainable landscapes. Landscape and … Verweij, P. (2018). Practical solutions for Creating methodological space: A literature
Urban Planning, 75(3), 322-332. https://doi. bottlenecks in ecosystem services mapping. review of Kaupapa Maori research. Canadian
org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.015 One Ecosystem, 3, e20713. https://doi. Journal of Native Education, 26, 15.
org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e20713
Orduz Salinas, N. (2014). La Consulta Previa Piwowarczyk, J., Kronenberg, J., &
en Colombia. Documento de Trabajo ICSO Pandit, R., Polyakov, M., & Sadler, R. Dereniowska, M. A. (2013). Marine
– N° 3 / 2014. Instituto de Investigación en (2014). Valuing public and private urban ecosystem services in urban areas: Do
Ciencias Sociales. Santiago, Chile. tree canopy cover. Australian Journal of the strategic documents of Polish coastal
Agricultural and Resource Economics, 58(3), municipalities reflect their importance?
Orlove, B. S., & Brush, S. B. (1996). 453-470. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1),
Anthropology and the conservation of 8489.12037 85-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biodiversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, landurbplan.2012.10.009
25(1), 329-352. https://doi.org/10.1146/ Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki,
annurev.anthro.25.1.329 G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R. T., Plummer, M. L. (2009). Assessing benefit
Başak Dessane, E., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., transfer for the valuation of ecosystem
Ostwald, M., Jonsson, A., Wibeck, V., & Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S. M., services. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Asplund, T. (2013). Mapping energy crop Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S., Al-Hafedh, Environment, 7(1), 38-45. https://doi.
cultivation and identifying motivational Y. S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S. T., … Yagi, org/10.1890/080091
238
Poe, G. L. (2016). Behavioral Anomalies Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder Rolfe, J., Bennett, J., & Kerr, G. (2015).
in Contingent Values and Actual Choices. participation for environmental Applied Benefit Transfer: An Australian and
Agricultural and Resource Economics management: A literature review. Biological New Zealand Policy Perspective. In R. J.
Review, 45(2), 246-269. https://doi. Conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431. https:// Johnston, J. Rolfe, R. S. Rosenberger,
org/10.1017/age.2016.25 doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014 & R. Brouwer (Eds.), Benefit Transfer of
Environmental and Resource Values (Vol. 14,
Poe, M. R., Donatuto, J., & Satterfield, T. Rendón, O. R., Garbutt, A., Skov, M., Möller, pp. 85-100). Springer Netherlands. https://
(2016). “Sense of Place”: Human Wellbeing I., Alexander, M., Ballinger, R., Wyles, K., doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9930-0_5
Considerations for Ecological Restoration in Smith, G., McKinley, E., Griffin, J., Thomas,
Puget Sound. Coastal Management, 44(5), M., Davidson, K., Pagès, J. F., Read, S., & Rolfe, J., & Dyack, B. (2019). Testing
409-426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0892075 Beaumont, N. (2019). A framework linking Temporal Stability of Recreation Values.
3.2016.1208037 ecosystem services and human well- Ecological Economics, 159, 75-83. https://
being: Saltmarsh as a case study. People doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.016
Polasky, S., & Dampha, N. K. (2021). and Nature, 1(4), 486-496. https://doi.
Discounting and Global Environmental org/10.1002/pan3.10050 Rolfe, J., & Windle, J. (2013). Including
Change. Annual Review of Environment Management Policy Options in Discrete
and Resources, 46(1), 691- Rhoades, R., & Bebbington, A. (1995). Choice Experiments: A Case Study of the
717. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- Farmers who experiment: An untapped Great Barrier Reef: Management policy
environ-020420-042100 resource for agricultural research and options in discrete choice experiments.
development. https://scholar.google.com/ Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/
Portelli, A. (1997). The Battle of Valle scholar_lookup?title=Farmers+who+ Revue Canadienne d’agroeconomie, 61(2),
Giulia: Oral History and the Art of Dialogue. experiment%3A+an+untapped+resource 197-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12013
UW Press. https://uwpress.wisc.edu/ +for+agricultural+research+and+
books/0404.htm development.&author=Rhoades+R. Rosenberger, R. S. (2015). Benefit Transfer
&publication_year=1995 Validity and Reliability. In R. J. Johnston,
Posey, D. A. (1985). Indigenous J. Rolfe, R. S. Rosenberger, & R. Brouwer
management of tropical forest ecosystems: Rhoades, R., & Booth, R. (1982). Farmer- (Eds.), Benefit Transfer of Environmental
The case of the Kayapó indians of the back-to-farmer: A model for generating and Resource Values (Vol. 14, pp. 307-
Brazilian Amazon. 3, 139-158. acceptable agricultural technology. 326). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.
Agricultural Administration, 11(2), 127- org/10.1007/978-94-017-9930-0_14
Prüss-Üstün, A., Wolf, J., Corvalán, C., Bos, 137. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-
R., & Neira, M. (2016). Preventing disease 586X(82)90056-5 Rosenberger, R. S., & Loomis, J. B. (2001).
through healthy environments: A global Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation use
assessment of the burden of disease from Ribot, J. C. (1998). Theorizing Access: values: A technical document supporting
environmental risks (Second edition). World Forest Profits along Senegal’s Charcoal the Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000
Health Organization. Commodity Chain. Development and revision) (RMRS-GTR-72; p. RMRS-
Change, 29(2), 307-341. https://doi. GTR-72). U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Rakotonarivo, O. S., Schaafsma, M., & org/10.1111/1467-7660.00080 Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Hockley, N. (2016). A systematic review Station. https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-
of the reliability and validity of discrete Richardson, L., & Loomis, J. (2009). GTR-72
choice experiments in valuing non- The total economic value of threatened,
market environmental goods. Journal endangered and rare species: An updated Rosenberger, R. S., & Loomis, J. B. (2003).
of Environmental Management, 183, meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 68(5), Benefit transfer. In P. A. Champ, K. J.
98-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 1535-1548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Boyle, & T. C. Brown (Eds.), A Primer on
jenvman.2016.08.032 ecolecon.2008.10.016 Nonmarket Valuation (Vol. 3). Springer
Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
Ramsbotham, O., Miall, H., & Woodhouse, T. Rocamora-Montiel, B., Colombo, S., & 94-007-0826-6
(2011). Contemporary conflict resolution: The Salazar-Ordóñez, M. (2014). Social attitudes
prevention, management and transformation in southern Spain to shape EU agricultural Rosenberger, R. S., & Stanley, T. D.
of deadly conflicts (3rd ed). Polity. policy. Journal of Policy Modeling, 36(1), (2006). Measurement, generalization, and
156-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. publication: Sources of error in benefit
Rasmussen, L. N., & Montgomery, P. (2018). jpolmod.2013.08.004 transfers and their management. Ecological
The prevalence of and factors associated Economics, 60(2), 372-378. https://doi.
with inclusion of non-English language Rodríguez, M. X., & León, C. J. (2004). org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.018
studies in Campbell systematic reviews: Altruism and the Economic Values of
A survey and meta-epidemiological study. Environmental and Social Policies. Ruijs, A., Kortelainen, M., Wossink, A.,
Systematic Reviews, 7(1), 129. https://doi. Environmental and Resource Economics, Schulp, C. J. E., & Alkemade, R. (2017).
org/10.1186/s13643-018-0786-6 28(2), 233-249. https://doi.org/10.1023/ Opportunity Cost Estimation of Ecosystem
B:EARE.0000029919.95464.0b Services. Environmental and Resource
Raymond, C. M., Kenter, J. O., Plieninger, Economics, 66(4), 717-747. https://doi.
T., Turner, N. J., & Alexander, K. A. (2014). Rogers, A. A., Dempster, F. L., Hawkins, org/10.1007/s10640-015-9970-5
Comparing instrumental and deliberative J. I., Johnston, R. J., Boxall, P. C., Rolfe,
paradigms underpinning the assessment J., Kragt, M. E., Burton, M. P., & Pannell, Ruiz-Frau, A., Krause, T., & Marbà, N.
of social values for cultural ecosystem D. J. (2019). Valuing non-market economic (2018). The use of sociocultural valuation
services. Ecological Economics, 107, impacts from natural hazards. Natural in sustainable environmental management.
145-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Hazards, 99(2), 1131-1161. https://doi. Ecosystem Services, 29, 158-167. https://
ecolecon.2014.07.033 org/10.1007/s11069-019-03761-7 doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.013
239
Rust, N. A. (2017). Can stakeholders agree Schmidt, K., Sachse, R., & Walz, A. (2016). Sen, A. (1998). The Possibility of Social
on how to reduce human–carnivore conflict Current role of social benefits in ecosystem Choice. The American Economic Review,
on Namibian livestock farms? A novel service assessments. Landscape and 89(3), 31.
Q-methodology and Delphi exercise. Oryx, Urban Planning, 149, 49-64. https://doi.
51(2), 339-346. https://doi.org/10.1017/ org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.005 Seppelt, R., Dormann, C., Eppink, F.,
S0030605315001179 Lautenbach, S., & Schmidt, S. (2011). A
Scholte, S. S. K., van Teeffelen, A. J. quantitative review of ecosystem service
Sagoff, M. (1988). Some Problems with A., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Integrating studies: Approaches, shortcomings and the
Environmental Economics: Environmental socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem road ahead: Priorities for ecosystem service
Ethics, 10(1), 55-74. https://doi. service valuation: A review of concepts studies. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(3),
org/10.5840/enviroethics198810128 and methods. Ecological Economics, 630-636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
114, 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 2664.2010.01952.x
Samonte, G., Ewards, P., Royster, ecolecon.2015.03.007
J., Ramenzoni, V., & Morlock, S. Seppelt, R., Fath, B., Burkhard, B., Fisher,
(2017). Socioeconomic Benefits of Schröter, M., Koellner, T., Alkemade, R., J., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lautenbach, S., Pert,
Habitat Restoration. NOAA Scientific Arnhold, S., Bagstad, K. J., Erb, K.-H., P., Hotes, S., Spangenberg, J., Verburg,
Publication Office. Frank, K., Kastner, T., Kissinger, M., Liu, J., P., & Van Oudenhoven, A. (2012). Form
Lopez-Hoffman, L., Maes, J., Marques, A., follows function? Proposing a blueprint for
SANBI & UNEP-WCMC. (2016). Mapping Martin-Lopez, B., Meyer, C., Schulp, C. J. ecosystem service assessments based
biodiversity priorities: A practical, science- E., Thober, J., Wolff, S., & Bonn, A. (2018). on reviews and case studies. Ecological
based approach to national biodiversity Interregional flows of ecosystem services: Indicators, 21, 145-154. https://doi.
assessment and prioritisation to inform Concepts, typology and four cases. org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.003
strategy and action planning. UNEP-WCMC. Ecosystem Services, 31, 231-241. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.003 Shafer, E. L. (1969). Perception of
Schaafsma, M., Bartkowski, B., & Lienhoop, Natural Environments. Environment
N. (2018). Guidance for Deliberative Schröter, M., Rusch, G. M., Barton, D. and Behavior, 1(1), 71-82. https://doi.
Monetary Valuation Studies. International N., Blumentrath, S., & Nordén, B. (2014). org/10.1177/001391656900100105
Review of Environmental and Resource Ecosystem Services and Opportunity
Economics, 12(2-3), 267-323. https://doi. Costs Shift Spatial Priorities for Conserving Shafer, E. L., & Brush, R. O. (1977). How
org/10.1561/101.00000103 Forest Biodiversity. PLoS ONE, 9(11), to measure preferences for photographs of
e112557. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. natural landscapes. Landscape Planning,
Schaefer, M., Goldman, E., Bartuska, pone.0112557 4, 237-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-
A. M., Sutton-Grier, A., & Lubchenco, J. 3924(77)90027-2
(2015). Nature as capital: Advancing and Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E. H., van
incorporating ecosystem services in United Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Remme, R. P., Shmueli, D. (2008). Framing in geographical
States federal policies and programs: Table Serna-Chavez, H. M., de Groot, R. S., & analysis of environmental conflicts: Theory,
1. Proceedings of the National Academy of Opdam, P. (2014). Ecosystem Services as a methodology and three case studies.
Sciences, 112(24), 7383-7389. https://doi. Contested Concept: A Synthesis of Critique Geoforum, 39(6), 2048-2061. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1420500112 and Counter-Arguments: Ecosystem org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.08.006
services as a contested concept.
Schägner, J. P., Brander, L., Maes, J., Conservation Letters, 7(6), 514-523. https:// Shmueli, D., Elliott, M., & Kaufman,
& Hartje, V. (2013). Mapping ecosystem doi.org/10.1111/conl.12091 S. (2006). Frame Changes and the
services’ values: Current practice and Management of Intractable Conflicts.
future prospects. Ecosystem Services, Schwandt, T. A., Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24, 207-
4, 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. G. (2007). Judging interpretations: But is it 218. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.169
ecoser.2013.02.003 rigorous? trustworthiness and authenticity
in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Sieber, S. S., da Silva, T. C., Campos,
Schild, J. E. M., Vermaat, J. E., de Groot, Evaluation, 2007(114), 11-25. https://doi. L. Z. de O., Zank, S., & Albuquerque,
R. S., Quatrini, S., & van Bodegom, P. org/10.1002/ev.223 U. P. (2014). Participatory Methods in
M. (2018). A global meta-analysis on the Ethnobiological and Ethnoecological
monetary valuation of dryland ecosystem Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Research. In U. P. Albuquerque, L. V. F.
services: The role of socio-economic, Diversity. (2020). Global Biodiversity Outlook Cruz da Cunha, R. F. P. de Lucena, & R. R.
environmental and methodological 5 (p. 211). N. Alves (Eds.), Methods and Techniques
indicators. Ecosystem Services, 32, in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology (pp.
78-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Seifert-Dähnn, I., Barkved, L. J., & 39-58). Springer New York. https://doi.
ecoser.2018.06.004 Interwies, E. (2015). Implementation of org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8636-7_3
the ecosystem service concept in water
Schleiniger, R. (1999). Comprehensive management – Challenges and ways Sikor, T., Martin, A., Fisher, J., & He, J.
cost-effectiveness analysis of measures to forward. Sustainability of Water Quality and (2014). Toward an Empirical Analysis
reduce nitrogen emissions in Switzerland. Ecology, 5, 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. of Justice in Ecosystem Governance.
Ecological Economics, 30(1), 147- swaqe.2015.01.007 Conservation Letters, 7(6), 524-532. https://
159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921- doi.org/10.1111/conl.12142
8009(98)00104-9 Sen, A. (1970). Collective Choice and Social
Welfare. Harvard University Press. Silva, P., & Pagiola, S. (2003). A Review of
Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining the Valuation of Environmental Costs and
Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, Benefits in World Bank Projects. Environment
and Nature . Oxford University Press. Department Working Papers, 94, 72.
240
Simpson, L. B. (2011). Dancing on our Squire, C., Davis, M., Esin, C., Andrews, Swart, J. A. A., van der Windt, H. J., &
turtle’s back: Stories of Nishnaabeg re- M., Harrison, B., Hýden, L.-C., & Hýden, Keulartz, J. (2001). Valuation of Nature
creation, resurgence and a new emergence. M. (2014). What is narrative research? in Conservation and Restoration.
Arbeiter Ring Pub. Bloomsbury. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/ Restoration Ecology, 9(2), 230-
9781472545220 238. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-
Smith, G. H. (2003). Indigenous struggle 100x.2001.009002230.x
for the transformation of education and Stankovitch, M. (Ed.). (2008). Indicators
schooling. Keynote address to the Alaskan relevant for indigenous peoples: A resource Swora, M. G. (2003). Using Cultural
Federation of Natives Convention. book. Tebtebba Foundation. Consensus Analysis to Study Sexual Risk
Perception: A Report on a Pilot Study.
Smith, H. F., & Sullivan, C. A. (2014). Statistics New Zealand. (2008). Towards a Culture, Health & Sexuality, 5(4), 339-352.
Ecosystem services within agricultural Mâori Statistics Framework: A discussion
landscapes-Farmers’ perceptions. document. In M. Stankovitch (Ed.), Tadaki, M., Sinner, J., & Chan, K. M. A.
Ecological Economics, 98, 72-80. https:// Indicators relevant for indigenous peoples: A (2017). Making sense of environmental
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.008 resource book. Tebtebba Foundation. values: A typology of concepts. Ecology and
Society, 22(1), art7. https://doi.org/10.5751/
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing Sterner, T., & Persson, U. M. (2008). An ES-08999-220107
methodologies: Research and indigenous Even Sterner Review: Introducing Relative
peoples (Second edition). Zed Books Ltd. Prices into the Discounting Debate. Review Tanaka, S., & Zabel, J. (2018). Valuing
of Environmental Economics and Policy, nuclear energy risk: Evidence from the
Smith, P. L. T. (1999). Decolonizing 2(1), 61-76. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/ impact of the Fukushima crisis on U.S.
Methodologies: Research and Indigenous rem024 house prices. Journal of Environmental
Peoples. Zed Books Ltd. Economics and Management, 88,
Stirling, A. (2006). Analysis, participation 411-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Smith, V. K., & Moore, E. M. (2010). and power: Justification and closure in jeem.2017.12.005
Behavioral Economics and Benefit Cost participatory multi-criteria analysis. Land
Analysis. Environmental and Resource Use Policy, 23(1), 95-107. https://doi. Tashie, A., & Ringold, P. (2019). A critical
Economics, 46(2), 217-234. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.010 assessment of available ecosystem services
org/10.1007/s10640-010-9358-5 data according to the Final Ecosystem
Stone-Jovicich, S. S., Lynam, T., Leitch, A., Goods and Services framework. Ecosphere,
Soedirgo, J., & Glas, A. (2020). Toward & Jones, N. A. (2011). Using Consensus 10(3), e02665. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Active Reflexivity: Positionality and Practice Analysis to Assess Mental Models about ecs2.2665
in the Production of Knowledge. PS: Political Water Use and Management in the
Science & Politics, 53(3), 527-531. https:// Crocodile River Catchment, South Africa. Taylor, L. O. (2008). Theoretical Foundations
doi.org/10.1017/S1049096519002233 Ecology and Society, 16(1), art45. https:// and Empirical Developments in Hedonic
doi.org/10.5751/ES-03755-160145 Modeling. In A. Baranzini, J. Ramirez, C.
Song, X. P., Tan, P. Y., Edwards, P., Schaerer, & P. Thalmann (Eds.), Hedonic
& Richards, D. (2018). The economic Subroy, V., Gunawardena, A., Polyakov, Methods in Housing Markets (pp. 15-
benefits and costs of trees in urban M., Pandit, R., & Pannell, D. J. (2019). 37). Springer New York. https://doi.
forest stewardship: A systematic review. The worth of wildlife: A meta-analysis of org/10.1007/978-0-387-76815-1_2
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 29, global non-market values of threatened
162-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. species. Ecological Economics, 164, TEEB. (2010). Mainstreaming the economics
ufug.2017.11.017 106374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. of nature: A synthesis of the approach,
ecolecon.2019.106374 conclusions and recommendations of teeb
Spake, R., Lasseur, R., Crouzat, E., (UNEP, Ed.). UNEP.
Bullock, J. M., Lavorel, S., Parks, K. E., Šunde, C., Sinner, J., Tadaki, M.,
Schaafsma, M., Bennett, E. M., Maes, J., Stephenson, J., Glavovic, B., Awatere, Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T.,
Mulligan, M., Mouchet, M., Peterson, G. S., Giorgetti, A., Lewis, N., Young, A., & Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014).
D., Schulp, C. J. E., Thuiller, W., Turner, M. Chan, K. (2018). Valuation as destruction? Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems
G., Verburg, P. H., & Eigenbrod, F. (2017). The social effects of valuation processes in for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The
Unpacking ecosystem service bundles: contested marine spaces. Marine Policy, Multiple Evidence Base Approach. AMBIO,
Towards predictive mapping of synergies 97, 170-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 43(5), 579-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/
and trade-offs between ecosystem marpol.2018.05.024 s13280-014-0501-3
services. Global Environmental Change,
47, 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Sutherland, W. J., Gardner, T. A., Haider, Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C.
gloenvcha.2017.08.004 L. J., & Dicks, L. V. (2014). How can M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., Elmqvist,
local and traditional knowledge be T., & Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge
Spash, C. L. (2008). Deliberative Monetary effectively incorporated into international systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—
Valuation and the Evidence for a New Value assessments? Oryx, 48(1), 1-2. https://doi. Lessons learned for sustainability. Current
Theory. Land Economics, 84(3), 469- org/10.1017/S0030605313001543 Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,
488. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.84.3.469 26-27, 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Swanwick, C. (2009). Society’s attitudes to cosust.2016.12.005
Spyce, A., Weber, M., & Adamowicz, W. and preferences for land and landscape.
(2012). Cumulative Effects Planning: Finding Land Use Policy, 26, S62-S75. https://doi. Tinch, R., Beaumont, N., Sunderland, T.,
the Balance Using Choice Experiments. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.025 Ozdemiroglu, E., Barton, D., Bowe, C.,
Ecology and Society, 17(1), art22. https:// Börger, T., Burgess, P., Cooper, C. N.,
doi.org/10.5751/ES-04491-170122 Faccioli, M., Failler, P., Gkolemi, I., Kumar,
241
R., Longo, A., McVittie, A., Morris, J., Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Economic Accounting. mental Economic
Park, J., Ravenscroft, N., Schaafsma, 42, 15-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Accounting. https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-
M., … Ziv, G. (2019). Economic valuation cosust.2019.11.009 accounting
of ecosystem goods and services: A
review for decision makers. Journal of Udofia, A., Noble, B., & Poelzer, G. United Nations, Department of Political
Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(4), (2017). Meaningful and efficient? Enduring Affairs, & United Nations Environment
359-378. https://doi.org/10.1080/2160654 challenges to Aboriginal participation in Programme. (2015). Natural resources and
4.2019.1623083 environmental assessment. Environmental conflict: A guide for mediation practitioners.
Impact Assessment Review, 65,
TNFD. (2021). TNFD – Taskforce on Nature- 164-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. United Nations, European Commission,
related Financial Disclosures. TNFD. https:// eiar.2016.04.008 Food and Agriculture Organization of the
tnfd.global/ United Nations, Organisation of Economic
UK NEA. (2011). The UK National Co-operation and Development, & World
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis Bank. (2014b). System of Environmental-
(2007). Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Key Findings (p. 51). UNEP- Economic Accounting 2012 – Experimental
Guide. Regulatory proposals (p. 10). Her WCMC. https://www.iwlearn.net/ Ecosystem Accounting. United Nations.
Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, documents/28717
represented by the President of the United Nations, European Commission,
Treasury Board,. UK NEA. (2014). The UK National Food and Agriculture Organization of the
Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the United Nations, Organisation of Economic
Tress, G., Tress, B., & Fry, G. (2005). Key Findings. UNEP-WCMC, LWEC. Co-operation and Development, World
Clarifying Integrative Research Concepts in Bank, & International Monetary Fund.
Landscape Ecology. Landscape Ecology, UN. (1993). The Global Partnership for (2014a). System of Environmental-Economic
20(4), 479-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/ the Environment and Development. A Accounting 2012 – Central Framework.
s10980-004-3290-4 Guide to Agenda 21. Post Rio Edition. United Nations.
United Nations.
Trice, A. H., & Wood, S. E. (1958). University of Manitoba. (2014). Framework
Measurement of Recreation Benefits: A UN. (2020). System of Environmental- for Research Engagement with First Nation,
Rejoinder. Land Economics, 34(4), 367- Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Metis, and Inuit Peoples (p. 40). https://
369. https://doi.org/10.2307/3144551 Accounting Draft for the Global Consultation umanitoba.ca/faculties/health_sciences/
on the complete document (p. 315). medicine/media/UofM_Framework_Report_
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). web.pdf
Decolonization is not a metaphor. UNDRIP. (2020). United Nations
Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Unnikrishnan, H., & Nagendra, H. (2015).
Society, 1(1), 1-40. Peoples | United Nations For Indigenous Privatizing the commons: Impact on
Peoples. https://www.un.org/development/ ecosystem services in Bangalore’s lakes.
Turner, K. G., Anderson, S., Gonzales- desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on- Urban Ecosystems, 18(2), 613-632. https://
Chang, M., Costanza, R., Courville, S., the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html doi.org/10.1007/s11252-014-0401-0
Dalgaard, T., Dominati, E., Kubiszewski, I.,
Ogilvy, S., Porfirio, L., Ratna, N., Sandhu, Ungar, M., McRuer, J., Liu, X., Theron, L., UNU-IHDP, & UNEP. (2014). Inclusive
H., Sutton, P. C., Svenning, J. C., Turner, G. Blais, D., & Schnurr, M. A. (2020). Social- Wealth Report 2012 – Measuring Progress
M., Varennes, Y. D., Voinov, A., & Wratten, ecological resilience through a biocultural Toward Sustainability. International
S. (2015). A review of methods, data, and lens: A participatory methodology to Journal of Sustainability in Higher
models to assess changes in the value of support global targets and local priorities. Education, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/
ecosystem services from land degradation Ecology and Society, 25(3), art8. https://doi. ijshe.2012.24913daa.006
and restoration. Ecological Modelling, org/10.5751/ES-11621-250308
319, 190-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. US EPA. (2009). Valuing the Protection
ecolmodel.2015.07.017 United Nations. (1987). Brundtland Report: of Ecological Systems and Services. [A
Our Common Future. Report of the Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board].
Turner, N. J., Gregory, R., Brooks, C., World Commission on Environment and Environmental Protection Agency. www.epa.
Failing, L., & Satterfield, T. (2008). From Development. https://digitallibrary.un.org/ gov/sab
Invisibility to Transparency: Identifying the record/139811?ln=en
Implications. Ecology and Society, 13(2), US EPA. (2000). Guidelines for Preparing
art7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02405- United Nations. (1992). Agenda 21: The Economic Analyses.
130207 Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development. United Nations. https://doi. US EPA. (2010). EPA Guidelines for
Turner, R. K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, org/10.1017/S037689290003157X Preparing Economic Analyses. U.S.
S., Jessamy, V., & Georgiou, S. (2003). Environmental Protection Agency.
Valuing nature: Lessons learned and future United Nations. (2019). Business
research directions. Ecological Economics, Accounting | System of Environmental USDA NRCS. (2010). Final Benefit-Cost
46(3), 493-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Economic Accounting. System Analysis for the Farm and Ranch Lands
S0921-8009(03)00189-7 of Environmental Economic Protection Program (FRPP) (p. 27). Natural
Accounting. https://seea.un.org/content/ Resources Conservation Service, United
Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., business-accounting States Department of Agriculture.
Klenk, N., & Louder, E. (2020). The
politics of co-production: Participation, United Nations. (2021). Ecosystem Uyarra, M. C., Gill, J. A., & Côté, I. M.
power, and transformation. Current Accounting | System of Environmental (2010). Charging for Nature: Marine
242
Park Fees and Management from a Venmans, F., & Groom, B. (2021). Social Warren, D. M., Slikkerveer, L. J., & Titilola, S.
User Perspective. AMBIO, 39(7), 515- discounting, inequality aversion, and the O. (1989). Indigenous knowledge systems:
523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010- environment. Journal of Environmental Implications for agriculture and international
0078-4 Economics and Management, 109, development. Studies in Technology and
102479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Social Change Series (USA).
Value Balancing Alliance. (2021). Value jeem.2021.102479 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_
Balancing Alliance. Home. https://www. lookup?title=Indigenous+knowledge+
value-balancing.com/ Virtanen, P. (2005). Land of the systems%3A+implications+for+agriculture
ancestors: Semiotics, history and space +and+international+development&author=
van Aalst, M. K., Cannon, T., & Burton, in Chimanimani, Mozambique. Social & Warren%2C+Dennis+M.&publication_
I. (2008). Community level adaptation Cultural Geography, 6(3), 357-378. https:// year=1989
to climate change: The potential role of doi.org/10.1080/14649360500111246
participatory community risk assessment. WBCSD. (2021). Redefining Value.
Global Environmental Change, 18(1), Vo, Q. T., Kuenzer, C., Vo, Q. M., Moder, World Business Council for Sustainable
165-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. F., & Oppelt, N. (2012). Review of valuation Development (WBCSD).
gloenvcha.2007.06.002 methods for mangrove ecosystem services.
Ecological Indicators, 23, 431-446. https:// Weisbrod, B. A. (1964). Collective-
van Asselt Marjolein, B. A., & Rijkens- doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.04.022 Consumption Services of Individual-
Klomp, N. (2002). A look in the mirror: Consumption Goods. The Quarterly Journal
Reflection on participation in Integrated von Möllendorff, C., & Hirschfeld, J. of Economics, 78(3), 471. https://doi.
Assessment from a methodological (2016). Measuring impacts of extreme org/10.2307/1879478
perspective. Global Environmental Change, weather events using the life satisfaction
12(3), 167-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/ approach. Ecological Economics, 121, Weller, S. C. (2007). Cultural
S0959-3780(02)00012-2 108-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Consensus Theory: Applications and
ecolecon.2015.11.013 Frequently Asked Questions. Field
van Beukering, P. J. H., Cesar, H. S. J., & Methods, 19(4), 339-368. https://doi.
Janssen, M. A. (2003). Economic valuation Vorstius, A. C., & Spray, C. J. (2015). A org/10.1177/1525822X07303502
of the Leuser National Park on Sumatra, comparison of ecosystem services mapping
Indonesia. Ecological Economics, 44(1), tools for their potential to support planning Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O.,
43-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921- and decision-making on a local scale. & Renn, O. (2011). Rationales for Public
8009(02)00224-0 Ecosystem Services, 15, 75-83. https://doi. Participation in Environmental Policy and
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.07.007 Governance: Practitioners’ Perspectives.
van Hiel, A., Cornelis, I., & Roets, A. (2007). Environment and Planning A: Economy
The intervening role of social worldviews Vossler, C. A., Doyon, M., & Rondeau, D. and Space, 43(11), 2688-2704. https://doi.
in the relationship between the five-factor (2012). Truth in Consequentiality: Theory org/10.1068/a44161
model of personality and social attitudes. and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice
European Journal of Personality, 21(2), 131- Experiments. American Economic Journal: Wheeler, W. J. (2015). Benefit Transfer for
148. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.618 Microeconomics, 4(4), 145-171. Water Quality Regulatory Rulemaking in
the United States. In R. J. Johnston, J.
van Holt, T., Townsend, W. R., & Cronkleton, Walz, A., Grêt-Regamey, A., & Lavorel, Rolfe, R. S. Rosenberger, & R. Brouwer
P. (2010). Assessing Local Knowledge S. (2016). Social valuation of ecosystem (Eds.), Benefit Transfer of Environmental
of Game Abundance and Persistence of services in mountain regions. Regional and Resource Values (Vol. 14, pp. 101-
Hunting Livelihoods in the Bolivian Amazon Environmental Change, 16(7), 1985- 115). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.
Using Consensus Analysis. Human Ecology, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016- org/10.1007/978-94-017-9930-0_6
38(6), 791-801. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 1028-x
s10745-010-9354-y Whittington, D., Adamowicz, W., & Lloyd-
Wang, S., Liu, X., Zhou, C., Hu, J., & Smith, P. (2017). Asking Willingness-to-
Vanoli, A. (1995). Reflections on Ou, J. (2017). Examining the impacts of Accept Questions in Stated Preference
environmental accounting issues. Review of socioeconomic factors, urban form, and Surveys: A Review and Research Agenda.
Income and Wealth, 41(2), 113-137. https:// transportation networks on CO2 emissions Annual Review of Resource Economics,
doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.1995. in China’s megacities. Applied Energy, 9(1), 317-336. https://doi.org/10.1146/
tb00104.x 185, 189-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. annurev-resource-121416-125602
apenergy.2016.10.052
Vatn, A., Barton, D., Lindhjem, H., Movik, Wiber, M., Berkes, F., Charles, A., &
S., Ring, I., & Santos, R. (2011). Can Wangai, P. W., Burkhard, B., & Müller, F. Kearney, J. (2004). Participatory research
Markets protect biodiversity? An evaluation (2016). A review of studies on ecosystem supporting community-based fishery
of different financial mechanisms. Norad services in Africa. International Journal management. Marine Policy, 28(6),
Report 19/2011 Discussion (November of Sustainable Built Environment, 5(2), 459-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
2015). NORAD. https://doi.org/10.13140/ 225-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2003.10.020
RG.2.1.1275.3360 ijsbe.2016.08.005
Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2009).
Venkatachalam, L. (2004). The contingent Warren. (2004). Interviewing in Qualitative Income Inequality and Social Dysfunction.
valuation method: A review. Environmental Research. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, Annual Review of Sociology, 35(1), 493-
Impact Assessment Review, 24(1), & T. Futing Liao (Eds.), The SAGE 511. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
89-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195- Encyclopedia of Social Science Research soc-070308-115926
9255(03)00138-0 Methods. Sage Publications, Inc. https://
doi.org/10.4135/9781412950589
243
Willemen, L. (2020). It’s about time: future perspectives. Ecological Indicators, Wulf, A. (2015). The invention of nature:
Advancing spatial analyses of ecosystem 55, 159-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Alexander von Humboldt’s new world (First
services and their application. Ecosystem ecolind.2015.03.016 American Edition). Vintage Books.
Services, 44, 101125. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101125 World Bank (Ed.). (2006). Where is the Wunder, S. (2005). Payments for
wealth of nations? Measuring capital for the environmental services: Some nuts and
Willemen, L., Cottam, A. J., Drakou, E. 21st century. The World Bank. bolts. Center for International Forestry
G., & Burgess, N. D. (2015). Using Social Research. Occasional Paper, 42, 32.
Media to Measure the Contribution of Red World Bank. (2009). Project appraisal
List Species to the Nature-Based Tourism document on a proposed adaptable Zabala, A., Sandbrook, C., & Mukherjee,
Potential of African Protected Areas. program loan in the amount of US$840 N. (2018). When and how to use Q
PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0129785. https://doi. million to the Argentine Republic for the methodology to understand perspectives in
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129785 Matanza-Riachuelo Basin Sustainable conservation research: The Q methodology.
Development Project phase 1 (APL1) in Conservation Biology, 32(5), 1185-
Williams, J. H. (2014). Defining and support if the first phase of the Matanza- 1194. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13123
measuring nature: The make of all things. Riachuelo Basin Sustainable Development
Morgan & Claypool. Project Program (Project Appraisal N.o Zafra-Calvo, N., Pascual, U., Brockington,
48443-AR; p. 203). World Bank. D., Coolsaet, B., Cortes-Vazquez, J. A.,
Wilson, S. (1995). Honoring Spiritual Gross-Camp, N., Palomo, I., & Burgess,
Knowledge. Canadian Journal of Native World Bank. (2010). The Changing N. D. (2017). Towards an indicator system
Education, 21, 61-69. Wealth of Nations: Measuring Sustainable to assess equitable management in
Development in the New Millennium. The protected areas. Biological Conservation,
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0- 211, 134-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Indigenous research methods. Fernwood 8213-8488-6 biocon.2017.05.014
Publishing. http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/
fy1002/2008431436.html World Bank. (2016). World Zandersen, M., Jørgensen, S. L.,
Bank Environmental and Social Nainggolan, D., Gyldenk\a erne, S.,
Winthrop, R. H. (2014). The strange case Framework. https://thedocs.worldbank. Winding, A., Greve, M. H., & Termansen, M.
of cultural services: Limits of the ecosystem org/en/doc/837721522762050108- (2016). Potential and economic efficiency
services paradigm. Ecological Economics, 0290022018/original/ESFFramework.pdf of using reduced tillage to mitigate climate
108, 208-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. effects in Danish agriculture. Ecological
ecolecon.2014.10.005 World Bank. (2017). International Bank Economics, 123, 14-22. https://doi.
for reconstruction and development org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.12.002
Wolf, I. D., Wohlfart, T., Brown, G., & project appraisal document on proposed
Bartolomé Lasa, A. (2015). The use of grants in the amount of US$5,329,452
public participation GIS (PPGIS) for park from the global environment facility’s
visitor management: A case study of least developed countries fund and in the
mountain biking. Tourism Management, amount of US$2,700,000 from the global
51, 112-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. facility for disaster reduction and recovery
tourman.2015.05.003 to the Democratic Republic of Congo for
a strengthening hydro-meteorological and
Wolff, S., Schulp, C. J. E., & Verburg, P. climate services project (P159217)
H. (2015). Mapping ecosystem services (N.o PAD1864; p. 117). World Bank.
demand: A review of current research and
244
245
View publication stats

2022IPBES_ASSESSMENTONVALUESCHAPTER3

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022IPBES_ASSESSMENTONVALUESCHAPTER3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022IPBES_ASSESSMENTONVALUESCHAPTER3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Chapter 3. The potential of valuation

Chapter · October 2022

M. Termansen Sander Jacobs

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tuyeni Heita Mwampamba Antonio J. Castro

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

COORDINATING LEAD AUTHORS: De Longueville (Belgium), Bathsheba Demuth (United

THIS CHAPTER SHOULD BE CITED AS :

3.1 AN INTRODUCTION TO VALUATION OF NATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

3.2 THE RICHNESS OF VALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

3.3 KEY CONSIDERATIONS IN VALUATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

3.4 GUIDANCE FOR VALUATION PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

3.4.1.4 Step 4 – selecting and applying valuation methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

3.5 CONCLUSIONS, KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 221

BOXES, FIGURES AND TABLES

Key findings of valuation research and practice; many more exist

180°W 60°W 0° 60°E 180°E

Density of Studies (log)

Figure 3 1 Global distribution of valuation studies in the period 2010-2020 as reported in

3. Valuation Atlas (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6468906).

Anthropogenic Direct drivers

Valuation method families

Statement-based Behaviour-based Integration

Very Low Low Medium High Very High

STEP 1 • Who is dependent on the (changes in) nature considered?

STEP 2 • Why is the valuation conducted?

STEP 4 • Which methods are relevant?

STEP 5 • How can results be used?

Figure 3 5 Valuation process depicted in 5 steps.

3.1 AN INTRODUCTION TO While individuals consciously and unconsciously undertake

VALUATION OF NATURE some degree of valuing to interpret and understand nature

Valuation methods and approaches

Valuation process consists of:

STEP 1 - CONSTRUCT A LEGITIMATE PROCESS

STEP 2 - DEFINE THE PURPOSE OF THE VALUATION

STEP 3 - BOUNDING THE SCOPE OF THE VALUATION

STEP 4 - METHOD SELECTION AND APPLICATION

• Full valuation process:

3.1.2.2 A discipline-neutral grouping of Behaviour-based valuation: Quantifies or qualifies the

Anthropogenic Direct drivers

US Environmental UK National UK National IPBES Pollination Global Environment Dasgupta Review

Table 3 2 Summary of evidence sourcing methods applied in Chapter 3 (Source: adapted

Environmental Green Econo-

Pre 1990 1990 - 2000

2000 - 2010 Post 2010

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Figure 3 10 Decadal country distribution of the corpus of nature valuation studies

Unclear/none Regional ecosystem/organism population Field plot/individual organism

Figure 3 12 Biophysical scale at which valuations were performed.

Above national Indigenous territories Sub-national

Figure 3 13 Valuations per administrative scale.

Formative or affirmative Recommendations & guidance Price-setting

Figure 3 14 Stated purposes of valuations.

Figure 3 15 Relative abundance of various valuation targets (systematic in-depth review

(Unclear/none) Specific stakeholder groups / communities Individuals

Figure 3 16 Social scale at which valuations were performed.

¯