M Schaafsma , S Ahn , AJ Castro , N Dendoncker , A Filyushkina , D González-Jiménez , Mariaelena Huambachano , N Mukherjee , TH Mwampamba , J Ngouhouo-Poufoun , I Palomo , R Pandit , M Termansen , H Ghazi , S Jacobs , H Lee , V Contreras
{"title":"Whose values count? A review of the nature valuation studies with a focus on justice","authors":"M Schaafsma , S Ahn , AJ Castro , N Dendoncker , A Filyushkina , D González-Jiménez , Mariaelena Huambachano , N Mukherjee , TH Mwampamba , J Ngouhouo-Poufoun , I Palomo , R Pandit , M Termansen , H Ghazi , S Jacobs , H Lee , V Contreras","doi":"10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services shows that multiple valuation methods and approaches exist to assess diverse value types. The evidence is based on the largest review of academic valuation studies on nature to date, developed for the Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We evaluate studies according to environmental justice criteria. The results suggest that although diverse value types and indicators are assessed across studies, few individual studies are plural, and studies fail to provide evidence on distributive justice and score low on procedural justice indicators. We provide a set of recommendations for incorporating issues of justice in the design of valuation studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":294,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability","volume":"64 ","pages":"Article 101350"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343523000970/pdfft?md5=528bf0df4f080b17a7e74a654f8eff91&pid=1-s2.0-S1877343523000970-main.pdf","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343523000970","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
The Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services shows that multiple valuation methods and approaches exist to assess diverse value types. The evidence is based on the largest review of academic valuation studies on nature to date, developed for the Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We evaluate studies according to environmental justice criteria. The results suggest that although diverse value types and indicators are assessed across studies, few individual studies are plural, and studies fail to provide evidence on distributive justice and score low on procedural justice indicators. We provide a set of recommendations for incorporating issues of justice in the design of valuation studies.
期刊介绍:
"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability (COSUST)" is a distinguished journal within Elsevier's esteemed scientific publishing portfolio, known for its dedication to high-quality, reproducible research. Launched in 2010, COSUST is a part of the Current Opinion and Research (CO+RE) suite, which is recognized for its editorial excellence and global impact. The journal specializes in peer-reviewed, concise, and timely short reviews that provide a synthesis of recent literature, emerging topics, innovations, and perspectives in the field of environmental sustainability.