Problems and challenges of ecosystem and biodiversity protection are linked to
diverse questions of evaluation. Several approaches to the valuation of natural and
semi-natural entities in the context of environmental protection issues exist, especially with regard to biodiversity. Different, and sometimes competing value systems, are used based on different presuppositions, but can nevertheless overlap in
content and result. Most prominent approaches are “Total Economic Value” and
“Ecosystem Service Approach”. Value systems (typological schemes) are important
instruments for the evaluative classification of complex issues. They are also part of
the scientific idea for operationalizing concepts and often quantify value questions
via monetization (“willingness to pay”).
In order to make an informed choice of the value systems to be used for decisionmaking in dealing with biodiversity and nature, the presuppositions of the respective
system have to be clarified. In particular, the discussion about the role of values in
argumentation, evaluation and decision making, about different types of values and
their relationship to norms, can provide information about the functions and criteria
value systems can fulfil. The importance of different value schemes for ecosystem
and land use change is currently being discussed. Since evaluations are inescapable
for the overall practice of nature conservation, such practice would benefit if there
would be a coherent unified value scheme. It can be argued that such a comprehensive and integrated synthesis of existing approaches, like the anthropocentric and
preference-based Total Economic Value (TEV) and the Ecosystem Service (ESS)
approach, along with different value systems being conceived in environmental
ethics, is within reach if patterns of reasoning in environmental ethics are outlined
and correlated to the categories within TEV and ESS.
A systematic theoretical step towards conceptual unity, and the clarification of the
respective presuppositions, helps in constructive exchange and can enable concrete
political programmes. TEV and ESS primarily reveal the values and achievements of
nature that are difficult for political processes to ignore. However, these approaches
are not comprehensive theories of conservation; they are schematic tools rather than
theories, but they can and should serve as a catalyst for the environmental axiological discourse. TEV and ESS can serve as solid entry points for a nuanced and richly
textured ethical discourse on nature’s values; ESS and TEV can enrich and refine the
ethical argumentation patterns; TEV and ESS can use opinion polls to determine
how groups of people actually benefit from natural capital, and they can translate this
into the everyday language of preferences, interests, compromises and opportunity
costs. Such language is the “lingua franca” in our commercialized world. TEV and
ESS can also point to the many trade-offs in human-nature interactions. Both TEV
and ESS have already become useful schematic tools to make the values of nature
visible—not just for devoted conservationists, but also to economically-minded
stakeholders. TEV and ESS make it difficult to deny, ignore, or downplay the
beneficial values of nature to people. Both TEV and ESS point out the interfaces
between environmental ethics and environmental economics. The debates at the
interfaces are about discounting, compensation, replacement costs, replacement of
functions and (“de re”) the uniqueness of some very special natural monuments. The
quantification and monetization of the instrumental values not only emphasize the
464
C. Hobohm et al.
diverse questions of evaluation. Several approaches to the valuation of natural and
semi-natural entities in the context of environmental protection issues exist, especially with regard to biodiversity. Different, and sometimes competing value systems, are used based on different presuppositions, but can nevertheless overlap in
content and result. Most prominent approaches are “Total Economic Value” and
“Ecosystem Service Approach”. Value systems (typological schemes) are important
instruments for the evaluative classification of complex issues. They are also part of
the scientific idea for operationalizing concepts and often quantify value questions
via monetization (“willingness to pay”).
In order to make an informed choice of the value systems to be used for decisionmaking in dealing with biodiversity and nature, the presuppositions of the respective
system have to be clarified. In particular, the discussion about the role of values in
argumentation, evaluation and decision making, about different types of values and
their relationship to norms, can provide information about the functions and criteria
value systems can fulfil. The importance of different value schemes for ecosystem
and land use change is currently being discussed. Since evaluations are inescapable
for the overall practice of nature conservation, such practice would benefit if there
would be a coherent unified value scheme. It can be argued that such a comprehensive and integrated synthesis of existing approaches, like the anthropocentric and
preference-based Total Economic Value (TEV) and the Ecosystem Service (ESS)
approach, along with different value systems being conceived in environmental
ethics, is within reach if patterns of reasoning in environmental ethics are outlined
and correlated to the categories within TEV and ESS.
A systematic theoretical step towards conceptual unity, and the clarification of the
respective presuppositions, helps in constructive exchange and can enable concrete
political programmes. TEV and ESS primarily reveal the values and achievements of
nature that are difficult for political processes to ignore. However, these approaches
are not comprehensive theories of conservation; they are schematic tools rather than
theories, but they can and should serve as a catalyst for the environmental axiological discourse. TEV and ESS can serve as solid entry points for a nuanced and richly
textured ethical discourse on nature’s values; ESS and TEV can enrich and refine the
ethical argumentation patterns; TEV and ESS can use opinion polls to determine
how groups of people actually benefit from natural capital, and they can translate this
into the everyday language of preferences, interests, compromises and opportunity
costs. Such language is the “lingua franca” in our commercialized world. TEV and
ESS can also point to the many trade-offs in human-nature interactions. Both TEV
and ESS have already become useful schematic tools to make the values of nature
visible—not just for devoted conservationists, but also to economically-minded
stakeholders. TEV and ESS make it difficult to deny, ignore, or downplay the
beneficial values of nature to people. Both TEV and ESS point out the interfaces
between environmental ethics and environmental economics. The debates at the
interfaces are about discounting, compensation, replacement costs, replacement of
functions and (“de re”) the uniqueness of some very special natural monuments. The
quantification and monetization of the instrumental values not only emphasize the
464
C. Hobohm et al.