多重估值的陷阱

IF 6.6 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101345
Sander Jacobs , Eszter Kelemen , Patrick O’Farrell , Adrian Martin , Marije Schaafsma , Nicolas Dendoncker , Ram Pandit , Tuyeni H Mwampamba , Ignacio Palomo , Antonio J Castro , Mariaelena A Huambachano , Anna Filyushkina , Haripriya Gunimeda
{"title":"多重估值的陷阱","authors":"Sander Jacobs ,&nbsp;Eszter Kelemen ,&nbsp;Patrick O’Farrell ,&nbsp;Adrian Martin ,&nbsp;Marije Schaafsma ,&nbsp;Nicolas Dendoncker ,&nbsp;Ram Pandit ,&nbsp;Tuyeni H Mwampamba ,&nbsp;Ignacio Palomo ,&nbsp;Antonio J Castro ,&nbsp;Mariaelena A Huambachano ,&nbsp;Anna Filyushkina ,&nbsp;Haripriya Gunimeda","doi":"10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper critically examines the current political context in which valuation studies of nature are undertaken. It challenges the belief that somehow, more and technically better valuation will drive the societal change toward more just and sustainable futures. Instead, we argue that current and proposed valuation practices risk to continue to overrepresent the values of those who hold power and dominate the valuation space, and to perpetuate the discrimination of the views and values of nondominant stakeholders. In tackling this politically sensitive issue, we define a political typology of valuations, making explicit the roles of power and discrimination. This is done to provide valuation professionals and other actors with a simple framework to determine if valuation actions and activities are constructive, inclusive, resolve injustices and enable systemic change, or rather entrench the status quo or aggravate existing injustices. The objective is to buttress actors in their decisions to support, accept, improve, oppose, or reject such valuations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":294,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability","volume":"64 ","pages":"Article 101345"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343523000921/pdfft?md5=a54a9852e4735e1f72bf93bf43eaad12&pid=1-s2.0-S1877343523000921-main.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The pitfalls of plural valuation\",\"authors\":\"Sander Jacobs ,&nbsp;Eszter Kelemen ,&nbsp;Patrick O’Farrell ,&nbsp;Adrian Martin ,&nbsp;Marije Schaafsma ,&nbsp;Nicolas Dendoncker ,&nbsp;Ram Pandit ,&nbsp;Tuyeni H Mwampamba ,&nbsp;Ignacio Palomo ,&nbsp;Antonio J Castro ,&nbsp;Mariaelena A Huambachano ,&nbsp;Anna Filyushkina ,&nbsp;Haripriya Gunimeda\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101345\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This paper critically examines the current political context in which valuation studies of nature are undertaken. It challenges the belief that somehow, more and technically better valuation will drive the societal change toward more just and sustainable futures. Instead, we argue that current and proposed valuation practices risk to continue to overrepresent the values of those who hold power and dominate the valuation space, and to perpetuate the discrimination of the views and values of nondominant stakeholders. In tackling this politically sensitive issue, we define a political typology of valuations, making explicit the roles of power and discrimination. This is done to provide valuation professionals and other actors with a simple framework to determine if valuation actions and activities are constructive, inclusive, resolve injustices and enable systemic change, or rather entrench the status quo or aggravate existing injustices. The objective is to buttress actors in their decisions to support, accept, improve, oppose, or reject such valuations.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability\",\"volume\":\"64 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101345\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343523000921/pdfft?md5=a54a9852e4735e1f72bf93bf43eaad12&pid=1-s2.0-S1877343523000921-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343523000921\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343523000921","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: 2

摘要

本文批判性地考察了当前的政治背景,其中评估自然的研究是进行。它挑战了一种信念,即在某种程度上,更多、技术上更好的估值将推动社会变革,走向更公正、更可持续的未来。相反,我们认为,当前和拟议的估值实践有可能继续过度代表掌权者和主导估值空间的人的价值观,并使对非主导利益相关者的观点和价值观的歧视永久化。在处理这一政治敏感问题时,我们定义了一种政治类型的估值,明确了权力和歧视的作用。这样做的目的是为估值专业人员和其他行为者提供一个简单的框架,以确定估值行动和活动是否具有建设性、包容性、解决不公正并实现系统性变革,或者更准确地说是巩固现状或加剧现有的不公正。目标是支持行为者的决定,以支持、接受、改进、反对或拒绝这样的评价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The pitfalls of plural valuation

This paper critically examines the current political context in which valuation studies of nature are undertaken. It challenges the belief that somehow, more and technically better valuation will drive the societal change toward more just and sustainable futures. Instead, we argue that current and proposed valuation practices risk to continue to overrepresent the values of those who hold power and dominate the valuation space, and to perpetuate the discrimination of the views and values of nondominant stakeholders. In tackling this politically sensitive issue, we define a political typology of valuations, making explicit the roles of power and discrimination. This is done to provide valuation professionals and other actors with a simple framework to determine if valuation actions and activities are constructive, inclusive, resolve injustices and enable systemic change, or rather entrench the status quo or aggravate existing injustices. The objective is to buttress actors in their decisions to support, accept, improve, oppose, or reject such valuations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES-ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
The potential of social innovation to shift the limits to climate adaptation Greening container terminals through optimization: a systematic review on recent advances Advancing sustainable port development in the Western Indian Ocean region Adaptation constraints, limits and enabling conditions in small island developing states Three archetypical governance pathways for transformative change toward sustainability
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1