tree to the eye of the beholder? Rather not. If oak trees symbolise my home county,
what kind of flow might this be? Both examples indicate that the fund-flow-model
does not work well with respect to the domain of cultural services. Cultural values
are not flows, but are constituted by axiological-cultural perceptions, by attribution
and grounding (Sect. 2). If so, we need models being more convincing on philosophical grounds (Sect. 5).
Moving further along the cascade, it is further assumed that humans are benefitted
by such “flows”. A service benefits some beneficiaries somehow. Without such
benefit, some humans would be worse off. Thus, a service counts as “good”. If so,
it has positive value (benefit) to someone. To destroy such values, implies a loss or a
damage being done to somebody else. This value is never isolated from other values
but embedded in the entire horizon of values coming in multiple constellations and
retreating into a deep background. Thus, the ESS cascade finally immerses into the
entirety of cultural values being connected to prescriptions and, at least sometimes,
to deontic terms. The ESS scheme mediates between the two abstract poles of nature
and culture, overcoming a mere divide.
When using value systems, such as ESS, one should point out that one uses the
term “service” as a purely technical term that is established in the sense of “ways in
which nature can be useful to humans”. Regretfully, the term “services” conveys
misleading connotations. Nature does not offer services like a company does. We
should not perceive nature in analogy to the service industries, but in its ecological
naturalness and its fertility, resilience, diversity and abundance. The “service”-terminology has become common parlance. Even if there are good reasons against
such terminology (Kirchhoff 2018, 2019), we should not discard the terminology
completely, but integrate the ESS-approach in a broader ethical framework.
The ESS approach distinguishes between supporting, provisioning, regulating
and cultural services. Each category includes several subcategories. The category of
supporting services is controversial. They are basic environmental requirements for
services, but not services themselves. They are necessary preconditions for services
without being services. Such supportive “services” are ecological functions and
structures that sustain the totality of a particular ecosystem (sometimes referred to
as “natural integrity”). Supporting services are “primary values”, such as exergy,
emergence of productivity and resilience, and fertility as generic disposition of living
beings. Since supporting services may include double counting, some scientists
abstract them away from the realm of real services. However, some important
ecosystem services, such as pollination, are neither provisioning nor regulating or
cultural services. If they belong to the category of supporting services, this category
should not be fully abstracted away. We may put high existence value to top
predators but should remind that ecological systems are running via the invisible
support of small organisms.
Provisioning services refer to all species used by humans, including spices,
cosmetics, pharmaceutics and medicines. Provisioning services run parallel to the
TEV use values. These are mainly yields that can be measured both physically and in
monetary terms. Regulatory services also belong, albeit rather indirectly, to the
category of TEV use values. They can also be measured in physical terms and by
Environmental Evaluation between Economics and Ethics: An Argument for. . .
141
what kind of flow might this be? Both examples indicate that the fund-flow-model
does not work well with respect to the domain of cultural services. Cultural values
are not flows, but are constituted by axiological-cultural perceptions, by attribution
and grounding (Sect. 2). If so, we need models being more convincing on philosophical grounds (Sect. 5).
Moving further along the cascade, it is further assumed that humans are benefitted
by such “flows”. A service benefits some beneficiaries somehow. Without such
benefit, some humans would be worse off. Thus, a service counts as “good”. If so,
it has positive value (benefit) to someone. To destroy such values, implies a loss or a
damage being done to somebody else. This value is never isolated from other values
but embedded in the entire horizon of values coming in multiple constellations and
retreating into a deep background. Thus, the ESS cascade finally immerses into the
entirety of cultural values being connected to prescriptions and, at least sometimes,
to deontic terms. The ESS scheme mediates between the two abstract poles of nature
and culture, overcoming a mere divide.
When using value systems, such as ESS, one should point out that one uses the
term “service” as a purely technical term that is established in the sense of “ways in
which nature can be useful to humans”. Regretfully, the term “services” conveys
misleading connotations. Nature does not offer services like a company does. We
should not perceive nature in analogy to the service industries, but in its ecological
naturalness and its fertility, resilience, diversity and abundance. The “service”-terminology has become common parlance. Even if there are good reasons against
such terminology (Kirchhoff 2018, 2019), we should not discard the terminology
completely, but integrate the ESS-approach in a broader ethical framework.
The ESS approach distinguishes between supporting, provisioning, regulating
and cultural services. Each category includes several subcategories. The category of
supporting services is controversial. They are basic environmental requirements for
services, but not services themselves. They are necessary preconditions for services
without being services. Such supportive “services” are ecological functions and
structures that sustain the totality of a particular ecosystem (sometimes referred to
as “natural integrity”). Supporting services are “primary values”, such as exergy,
emergence of productivity and resilience, and fertility as generic disposition of living
beings. Since supporting services may include double counting, some scientists
abstract them away from the realm of real services. However, some important
ecosystem services, such as pollination, are neither provisioning nor regulating or
cultural services. If they belong to the category of supporting services, this category
should not be fully abstracted away. We may put high existence value to top
predators but should remind that ecological systems are running via the invisible
support of small organisms.
Provisioning services refer to all species used by humans, including spices,
cosmetics, pharmaceutics and medicines. Provisioning services run parallel to the
TEV use values. These are mainly yields that can be measured both physically and in
monetary terms. Regulatory services also belong, albeit rather indirectly, to the
category of TEV use values. They can also be measured in physical terms and by
Environmental Evaluation between Economics and Ethics: An Argument for. . .
141